Re: Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Tue, 06 September 2011 23:46 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
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 EF19B21F8F7C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 16:46:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.795
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.795 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.196, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 7uw9UcmdInka for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 16:46:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-3.cisco.com (mtv-iport-3.cisco.com [173.36.130.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC7C121F8EDD for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 16:46:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; l=2097; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1315352924; x=1316562524; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=h5nFt1sA+qTmIRsrdmoIkGqfT776+Sp7MsPWHSA6tyc=; b=ITqkpN+hgmK2HgQpw8gd58TKmciRpUhQYoQslNuWxWQWiLvPbuGvZBwm eItZk786VDl0lbyATZ7nYj6zWFpIZ3rhP698Dy31jWJFqG37fOC6JebP/ EyQTpsX4ywJ3otttmHfSPcqWPp2E5NtpA/3G4RJ4azTlgvgY8iLLQRtEe M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAD+xZk6rRDoI/2dsb2JhbABDqAl4gUYBAQEBAgESASc6BQULC0ZXBjWHUZlhAZ9PhgpgBIdri0OFD4we
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,342,1312156800"; d="scan'208";a="543103"
Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by mtv-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Sep 2011 23:48:31 +0000
Received: from stealth-10-32-244-219.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-244-219.cisco.com [10.32.244.219]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p86NmTUn024300; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 23:48:30 GMT
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by stealth-10-32-244-219.cisco.com (PGP Universal service); Tue, 06 Sep 2011 16:48:30 -0700
X-PGP-Universal: processed; by stealth-10-32-244-219.cisco.com on Tue, 06 Sep 2011 16:48:30 -0700
Subject: Re: Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMA8as0xnj=PkK5jcXEe6GRXRAxvif4f5MJxg6K=x7oguA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 16:48:20 -0700
Message-Id: <385B68F2-5299-4E83-BC93-CA2F0694572F@cisco.com>
References: <20110728121904.2D22AD7A76F@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu> <4E5D4570.9080108@piuha.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20110902090159.09e97af0@resistor.net> <4E6147D4.2020204@santronics.com> <DF7F294AF4153D498141CBEFADB17704C352657343@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <20110906161108.GI31240@shinkuro.com> <CEDD8840-BE2D-405E-872A-271C25A9A59D@network-heretics.com> <01O5QFMUPV8S014O5Z@mauve.mrochek.com> <CA+9kkMBig=Oe=3x=G-8YVsd49buGNWX2vmAY3wj7dVgtjf9p5g@mail.gmail.com> <03319FB4-2D6F-4E23-9C1F-4413A8CDE2B7@network-heretics.com> <CA+9kkMA8as0xnj=PkK5jcXEe6GRXRAxvif4f5MJxg6K=x7oguA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: 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: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 23:46:58 -0000

On Sep 6, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:

> The IESG has been working to the assumption that Proposed Standards will be widely deployed into all environments for a long time.  That may well be an appropriate response to the deployment practice (heck, if "the internet runs on internet drafts" we're lucky that we don't have an IESG review step before i-d publication).  But if the result of this exercise is that the bar for PS stays as-is and the bar for the second stage merges, we will retain what is a functionally a one-stage standards process.  We can certainly live with that (we live with it now), but it means we are changing out a standard that doesn't accurately reflect what we do now for one that doesn't accurately reflect what we will do.  

Agreed. That has been my primary puzzlement with this entire discussion.

The problem that "cycling at Proposed" solves is "what if I need to change the technology in some way". "Foo updates bar" does the same. Generally speaking, we don't get a rewrite until A has been updated by B1, B2, and B3, B2 has been obsoleted by C, and C has been updated by D. What Draft Standard was supposed to fix was a raft of testing coupled with that rewrite of the specification that also removed cruft that wasn't used.

Frankly, the only thing I ever figured out that "Full Standard" was useful for was "obsolete" (he ducks).

I wonder if we would be better off discarding the concept of layers of standards, call PS "Standards track", and instead specify a way to report interoperability tests. If we have a document A that has been updated by B and someone has tested several implementations of A+B, could they say "I tested A+B in this configuration, which used features A.1, A.2, A.3, A.5, and B.1, with these results", without forcing the rewrite or the major conniption fits that DS involves.

Folks in fact do interoperability tests with some regularity. They do them for equipment they want to buy, they do bake-offs, and they do other things.