IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Mon, 24 January 2011 18:41 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 6469F3A6B26 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:41:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 bArAJT5mbPBr for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:41:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D6963A6B24 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:41:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-234.cisco.com (dhcp-64-101-72-234.cisco.com [64.101.72.234]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 39401400F6; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 12:00:41 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <4D3DC893.4090409@stpeter.im>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 11:44:35 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Subject: Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels
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>
In-Reply-To: <4D3DC75E.9060804@joelhalpern.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="------------ms070904050007070705050001"
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 18:41:42 -0000

On 1/24/11 11:39 AM, Joel M. Halpern 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.

Aha: so restore operationally. That makes sense.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email