IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Mon, 24 January 2011 18:54 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A70883A6A83 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:54:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.467
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.131, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 22XH2jtkYFid for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:54:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 677AD3A698F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:54:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by yxt33 with SMTP id 33so1637220yxt.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:57:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=3WU081DD7t1e+0x/gqlqkKN/EC09mZu1t6K+8PfjE08=; b=HYJ2WD7bpWwwQ9fqi7lMIdU16l4McdWgBjvvNghhq8kMfOh0Cpc+yfnjM3MklLpuND dOigiiYJyrm0AhsGgqlHfqqsc/94TGRVakr5cK8xrXoXgTrkrJQJdzoNjKD7QUm43ny4 0jeAlfMhg3hOhTPZtU1EfcNjn55z0PxaIzz1g=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=g6/EsjR15iWDb5rtXEqPh3JbfTzkilKonYCSDOHY26o0SQVSnT1H/qYB7euMUmjZRK Hi1K8A/GqGsHy3O92p0xRK3Aiy+9fqMCrdcqpwY4IShEBfXPYFtGhrqJm29LHwAqCQoR OOlbOcnxCDcCFHl+DyZYuEZ5BQnBmMLP1XI1k=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.6.7 with SMTP id 7mr3155556anf.256.1295895423357; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:57:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.100.109.16 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:57:03 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4D3DC75E.9060804@joelhalpern.com>
References: <4B803580-664C-42B3-92A7-712452F12BA3@gmail.com> <01NTJJR8423E000CVY@mauve.mrochek.com> <20101027171037.GB3162@nsn.com> <63DD35D1-1C25-401D-8C05-992A2D11E3DE@vigilsec.com> <4D3DC552.30708@stpeter.im> <4D3DC75E.9060804@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 13:57:03 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=+utUoE_ZsWeHYiQJmWbM3JorJEmX3X1ywDPMN@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016e642d3ba6015ac049a9c2a32"
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:54:09 -0000

On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>wrote:

> It seems to me that this proposal strikes a good balance in making an
> effort to improve the situation regarding our document track.
>
> Regarding the particular clause:
>
> On 1/24/2011 1:30 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> ...
>
>  2. I found this statement to be strange:
>>
>>    The intention of the two-tier maturity
>>    ladder is to restore the requirements for Proposed Standard from RFC
>>    2026.
>>
>> Why "restore"? Have they been superseded or ignored? I suggest "retain".
>>
>
> I think the use of the word "restore" is very important. Over the years,
> our informal requirements and our sense of what was needed for Proposed
> Standard have moved up noticeably.  This reflected a number of factors, all
> of them driven as best I can tell by good intentions.
> Restoring the lower bar for PS is probably the most direct benefit this
> proposal can have on our work.
>

I would like that to be possible, but I would settle for just being able to
make Standard status feasible.

One of the side effects of most drafts deadlocking at Proposed is that
people don't want to let anything 'bad' go through and that often means
something that people 'feel uncomfortable with'.


-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email