Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

sob@harvard.edu (Scott O. Bradner) Tue, 26 October 2010 12:40 UTC

Return-Path: <sob@harvard.edu>
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 7C3783A6979 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:40:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.329
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.329 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.270, 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 yMAGqC-b7pkN for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:40:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from newdev.eecs.harvard.edu (newdev.eecs.harvard.edu [140.247.60.212]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 267D83A696A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:39:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by newdev.eecs.harvard.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id 785EF5B29B7; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 08:41:19 -0400 (EDT)
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels
Message-Id: <20101026124119.785EF5B29B7@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 08:41:19 -0400
From: sob@harvard.edu
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: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 12:40:48 -0000

Russ asks

> Just to clarify, do you think that it would be better to document "one
> step" or do you think that the community should not spend time on this
> topic at all?

I think the community should only change its processes with careful deliberation
taking into account the interplay of the different factors

I do not this particular document does this, nor would some other
document that proposes one or 7 steps

I think it is better to not fiddle, even if the current documents
do not paint an accurate picture, I think we need to be serious
when changing our basic rules.

Scott