Re: prerequisite for change (was Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels)

Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net> Sun, 30 January 2011 15:46 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
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 3BC863A67EB for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 07:46:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.589
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.589 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.010, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 N8snUJVd1yco for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 07:46:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A8BB3A67D4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 07:46:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.5] (adsl-68-122-35-253.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [68.122.35.253]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p0UFo4uo005852 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 30 Jan 2011 07:50:09 -0800
Message-ID: <4D458898.8090008@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 07:49:44 -0800
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>
Subject: Re: prerequisite for change (was Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels)
References: <20110129223900.60C00817786@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu> <AANLkTinLzBs7P2Fw-U2pNVOTqdG-nOOpYNNTMU40QK+2@mail.gmail.com> <20110130145814.GA39423@shinkuro.com> <F3C3FE2A-3DCD-46B2-8E4D-B557AD22A2DC@network-heretics.com> <20110130153551.GB39423@shinkuro.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110130153551.GB39423@shinkuro.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Sun, 30 Jan 2011 07:50:10 -0800 (PST)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 15:46:59 -0000

On 1/30/2011 7:35 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> Is there an implicit assumption here that more standards (presumably of
>> poorer quality) is a good thing?
>
> Not on my part.  I'm merely observing that, if the claim is that you can't
> alter deployed protocols, then there's no reason to say that we need two
> maturity levels, because in fact nothing will advance past the first stage
> anyway.

The current proposal specifies a second maturity level that does not permit 
changing the technical specification.


> But if the problem is that you can't alter a deployed spec, then no matter
> how many levels we pare off past the first, nothing will move to those higher
> levels, because it's only the first level that counts.

The rationale for the second level concerns assessment of success, not changes
to the protocol.

So the basis upon which the second level will succeed or fail has nothing to do
with the criterion you are citing.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net