Re: Review of: Characterization of Proposed Standards

Olaf Kolkman <> Fri, 01 November 2013 08:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DB5B11E80E6 for <>; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 01:33:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.512
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.512 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.088, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZNc5MhHOYB2d for <>; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 01:33:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:7b8:206:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D86911E8127 for <>; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 01:33:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:980:2282:1:18da:f57a:e7ee:f93e] ([IPv6:2001:980:2282:1:18da:f57a:e7ee:f93e]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.7/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rA18XFdP005872 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 1 Nov 2013 09:33:18 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from
Authentication-Results:; dmarc=none
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.8.3 rA18XFdP005872
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=default; t=1383294799; bh=rDo8Q+LX5XaBUxojHMEL9UY1PyvR7KtXpWWi6Y6lnBo=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=F2ZmHMloBIszGOGmYSp2iFjsepqhK79Z3eHqimLsGzI8JbqHexBLAjpxoQKbG3zGH ZXWSg2sHCVFFdNkta3033hr/exMAsOU1rcLlL78UCGXZNZQkEMmKWS0Vb/MpgoI+R4 0b464yQrb0B+ULKDzK8ZGZIi9ZT5isOshIi0KCug=
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_614D1BF6-6416-4757-8C8D-A44B3F9E912D"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\))
Subject: Re: Review of: Characterization of Proposed Standards
From: Olaf Kolkman <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 09:33:14 +0100
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
To: Barry Leiba <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 ( [IPv6:2001:7b8:206:1::53]); Fri, 01 Nov 2013 09:33:19 +0100 (CET)
Cc: "<>" <>, Dave Crocker <>, IETF Discussion <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 08:33:31 -0000

> I think that's not really addressing the core of Dave's concern, which
> isn't that the repetition is unnecessary (which would be a matter of
> taste), but that it's actually harmful, in that future changes could
> leave us with two divergent definitions of "Internet Standard".
> On this, I'll note that we're already somewhat along that path, as
> 6410 quoted text from 2026 in its definition of "Internet Standard".

This IMHO is an argument to consolidate. If I don’t get it right (with some high layer IETF experience) then how would an external consumer. Let’s put a consolidated  2026/6410 IETF Standards characterization in this document and create clarity.

(I would be helped with being pointed out those small things)

I want one document to point at when people ask me ‘what is the difference between proposed and Internet standards’.  For the people that ask for that difference it’s the characterization that matters. For those that want to know what the processes are… well, they can dive deeper. 

The target audience of this document is not only the IETF is what I am saying.

> Perhaps you have a suggestion for different wording, Dave, that will
> address your concern while still addressing mine?

I’d be happy to incorporate (also see my note to SM that contains an argument: we want to be able to generically say that Proposed standards are good enough for market, except when they are not).