Re: Review of: Characterization of Proposed Standards

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Sat, 02 November 2013 09:11 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.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 1DB7F11E8105 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 02:11:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.956
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.956 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, 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 pF4VxxBqc5Lz for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 02:11:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-x236.google.com (mail-qa0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18AA011E80EC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 02:11:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qa0-f54.google.com with SMTP id j15so1104465qaq.20 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 02 Nov 2013 02:11:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=k8KABYXQlOoINkEOiyXOLSpEK374yYC29HMRZhW0JqU=; b=F/qAhH8MUGw2WNFzfZifNoCVD1iCS48Fg9IyURgeyk4pU6h7bH/ydL0n6Du1Fkhcpm DFqB3aYZPcccec7Nh0J4c/4XXl9NPdUdD3NvGbt2lfZH/7C0lmOVPE22AGA3Qzxl9Hum 4cGW9uRLpVwU6Np3PaU9m3pAkIYAzHVBkJ0Vvgx1ycY8lxmtTuaTPZpYPPDCjKLsVUux LshH9DGuAjBKaQ280KZ+AnBJSr+pCSCwzFw+cmJVicplw3aa001sDUwZOnm4yopLbEwB w13G+MhzA0qQoTbDhNGKJYJhZ018Thq7Z6QSHIdy5swQ8VU2kibSchVnn4iwG2rv3nzh kAow==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.40.138 with SMTP id k10mr9248955qae.67.1383383469947; Sat, 02 Nov 2013 02:11:09 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.224.67.130 with HTTP; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 02:11:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <40AFC5D09A1926489ECFED9D7633D98A20045B@ESESSMB307.ericsson.se>
References: <5269209F.3060706@dcrocker.net> <B4B31C25-C472-41B3-AAF8-96670E0E243F@NLnetLabs.nl> <52729C1D.7010400@dcrocker.net> <CAC4RtVCewEKatJKJnBbCqgsuBjHCOHY49WoTx+y-K_zDt+Smxg@mail.gmail.com> <40AFC5D09A1926489ECFED9D7633D98A20045B@ESESSMB307.ericsson.se>
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2013 05:11:09 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 8coQ_qlK9hLIDdFyg3oKRQWDHDY
Message-ID: <CALaySJJ_o=YTgmzsUmJRWfNwH1-5DnhyKF_xDXa8nKQ=5_-jRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Review of: Characterization of Proposed Standards
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bdc89fa50805f04ea2e1007"
Cc: "<draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified.all@tools.ietf.org>" <draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified.all@tools.ietf.org>, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, 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: Sat, 02 Nov 2013 09:11:20 -0000

On the Sec 3.2 point, I think Olaf is getting somewhere in his reply: make
this the definitive source, which should eliminate the issue of duplication
and also merge in the 6410 stuff.  I'll work up text on the plane (en route
to EWR now.

Barry

On Friday, November 1, 2013, Jari Arkko wrote:

> I largely agree with what Barry is saying. Additional review is always
> helpful, but I'm pessimistic about getting relevant additional review. And
> I'm mostly thinking of the kind of people where this work started from;
> folk who would have a problem using RFCs as reference standards in, say,
> government procurement, but would happily go on using their computers with
> all kinds of Internet technology in them after speaking :-) I think the
> crux of the matter is to get our own house in order and be consistent
> between reality and our description of the IETF process. And this is what
> we're doing.
>
> FWIW, my personal opinions on content:
>
> I am happy with the 3.2 as it stands, but also happy with Barry's
> suggested "by-reference" formulation.
>
> I agree with Barry's description of why Section 4 is necessary.
>
> Jari
>
>