Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Sat, 30 October 2010 18:34 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.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 8D62A3A69BE for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:34:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.426
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.426 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.173, 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 B2+GMZ6HjI-0 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:34:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DE3B3A6A10 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from joelja-mac.local (m2a5e36d0.tmodns.net [208.54.94.42]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o9UIZtG2028886 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 30 Oct 2010 18:36:19 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Message-ID: <4CCC5F5E.4020806@bogus.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:09:34 -0700
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100915 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bob Braden <braden@isi.edu>
Subject: Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels
References: <20101026232023.8FFF65B66CA@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu> <AANLkTi=tZnyVV+bcikN3jcRYnhixHbt0sv6yDEtyb=wT@mail.gmail.com> <046e01cb756d$cacf9d40$606ed7c0$@net> <4CC891F9.1030104@isi.edu> <06c201cb761e$bb391d50$31ab57f0$@net> <4CC89E26.8010802@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4CC89E26.8010802@isi.edu>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.2 (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]); Sat, 30 Oct 2010 18:36:29 +0000 (UTC)
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: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 18:34:40 -0000

The waist of the hourglass doesn't need that much work... and in fact a
mature system like the internet seems to quite successfully resist
change there.

joel

On 10/27/10 2:48 PM, Bob Braden wrote:
> 
> Tony,
> 
> I note that there seems to be some correlation between the degradation
> of the IETF process and
> the disappearance of the Internet research community from the IETF (the
> US government
> decided that no further R&D funding was required, since the Internet was
> "done".)
> 
> Bob Braden
>> It would work if the overall process were more efficient. Now we
>> effectively
>> go WG I-D to full IS, which is what your eloquent overview of the driving
>> force notes. If we truncated WG I-D at the common points people could
>> agree
>> to start implementing, and have PS actually document the evolution of the
>> implementations, we would get back closer to when the IETF was
>> productive. ...
> 
>> Tony
>>
>>   
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>