Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

"James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com> Fri, 01 October 2010 03:13 UTC

Return-Path: <jmpolk@cisco.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 210F83A6BF1 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 20:13:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.423
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.423 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.176, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 RdhyFHwm96iq for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 20:13:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1CD33A6BE1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 20:13:48 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-5.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEABPvpEyrRN+J/2dsb2JhbACiN3GpTZwahUQEhFE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.57,262,1283731200"; d="scan'208";a="263129028"
Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.223.137]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Oct 2010 03:14:35 +0000
Received: from jmpolk-wxp01.cisco.com (rcdn-jmpolk-8715.cisco.com [10.99.80.22]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o913EZob020650; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 03:14:35 GMT
Message-Id: <201010010314.o913EZob020650@sj-core-3.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 22:14:34 -0500
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
From: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels
In-Reply-To: <4CA54E97.9050208@gmail.com>
References: <20070.1278510136@erosen-linux> <4C3498CF.90206@dcrocker.net> <4C349E0E.7030904@gmx.de> <4C349ED8.6080706@bbiw.net> <4C7EB142.3030209@vigilsec.com> <4CA54E97.9050208@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: 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: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 03:13:51 -0000

At 09:59 PM 9/30/2010, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>Since you asked, I'd like to see this move forward as quickly
>as possible.
>
>Just one practical issue seems to be hanging. The draft says:
>  This document makes no change to the current STD practice; however,
>  this topic deserves further discussion by the whole community.
>
>Fair enough. But what happens to the existing STD numbers
>on the transition day?
>
>- Do existing full Standards keep their existing STD number as they
>are renamed Internet Standard? (I suggest: yes.)
>
>- Do existing Draft Standards acquire an STD number as they are
>renamed Internet Standard? (Pragmatically, I suggest no, unless
>they already obsolete or update an existing STD.)

Brian

I'm not sure I agree on your second point (specifically on your 
position of "no").

DSs have achieved a demonstrable hurdle that PS couldn't - by 
definition - by achieving independent interoperability.  TO group DSs 
back with PSs is unfair and IMO, rather inappropriate.

Said another way, when looking at the current PS, DS and FS within 
the standards track - what sufficiently differentiates these 3 into two groups?

I would argue "provable interoperability" is that differentiation, 
which is why I wouldn't back-step DSs into the category that PSs will 
move into. I would progress them into where FSs are going, i.e., the 
Internet Standard category.

of course, other opinions may think otherwise...

James


>Regards
>    Brian Carpenter
>
>On 2010-09-02 08:02, Russ Housley wrote:
> > Dear IETF community:
> >
> > I just posted an update to draft-housley-two-maturity-levels.  I tried
> > to reflect what I heard during the plenary discussion in Maastricht.
> > Please review and comment.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Russ
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > Ietf@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> >
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf mailing list
>Ietf@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf