Re: Review of: Characterization of Proposed Standards

Olaf Kolkman <olaf@NLnetLabs.nl> Sat, 02 November 2013 14:47 UTC

Return-Path: <olaf@NLnetLabs.nl>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38EA021E80A3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 07:47:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.077, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A45f4bpA5cON for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 07:47:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from open.nlnetlabs.nl (open.nlnetlabs.nl [IPv6:2001:7b8:206:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBFEC21E8085 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 07:47:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:67c:370:144:4598:2df2:c88e:f1cd] ([IPv6:2001:67c:370:144:4598:2df2:c88e:f1cd]) (authenticated bits=0) by open.nlnetlabs.nl (8.14.7/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rA2Ek1js095244 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sat, 2 Nov 2013 15:46:06 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from olaf@NLnetLabs.nl)
Authentication-Results: open.nlnetlabs.nl; dmarc=none header.from=NLnetLabs.nl
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.8.3 open.nlnetlabs.nl rA2Ek1js095244
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nlnetlabs.nl; s=default; t=1383403618; bh=U9dni6LgjyWG9ZGIi0T+WCbp8SaZ7Mp6Z4xgFkt4xwE=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=f/QmMDQ0gd87Hx5wZqb4BgXseNy51UAVEX/JRfRlqfHAMAb4Tugr6/P2lNeC6lxxM 9eqo2B/p1tXZ3P5Vp7zNFlaL2DwJ2qiCwDfuqhyIBx6I8qRJCBTvSiClaV5vMhpX3E nZr0ZFoYgcEj5LzmmMxMyz9Ef7SsBTEkc10lMz3E=
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D41A1691-4CE9-4989-AAF9-EFD188E11466"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\))
Subject: Re: Review of: Characterization of Proposed Standards
From: Olaf Kolkman <olaf@NLnetLabs.nl>
In-Reply-To: <5274FE3B.9060501@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2013 15:45:59 +0100
Message-Id: <61BA7333-627B-46BA-9DF4-6418B9CB6E69@NLnetLabs.nl>
References: <5269209F.3060706@dcrocker.net> <B4B31C25-C472-41B3-AAF8-96670E0E243F@NLnetLabs.nl> <52729C1D.7010400@dcrocker.net> <CAC4RtVCewEKatJKJnBbCqgsuBjHCOHY49WoTx+y-K_zDt+Smxg@mail.gmail.com> <34A065A2-516B-4033-BCAF-E0811698E6A6@NLnetLabs.nl> <5274FE3B.9060501@dcrocker.net>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (open.nlnetlabs.nl [IPv6:2001:7b8:206:1::53]); Sat, 02 Nov 2013 15:46:09 +0100 (CET)
Cc: "<draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified.all@tools.ietf.org>" <draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified.all@tools.ietf.org>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2013 14:47:12 -0000

On 2 nov. 2013, at 14:29, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:

> 
> Again:  This round of modification is triggered by reports from Olaf of folk who are discounting the Proposed Standard label.  It makes little sense to change a foundational document for these folk without getting them to review it and agree that it assuages their concerns.


'Triggered by’ is the right characterization, not requested, wanted, or mandated by. As such those folk are not the direct consumers. 

That said and FWIW: I have socialized the draft with some of the folk I am working with that I consider consumers. The feedback that one gets is not at the level we are having the discussion now. 



>   4.  Further Considerations
> 
>   Occasionally the IETF may choose to publish as Proposed Standard a
>   document that contains areas of known limitations or challenges.  In
>   such cases any known issues with the document will be clearly and
>   prominently communicated in the document, for example in the
>   abstract, the introduction, or a separate section or statement.

WFM.


—Olaf