Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Russ Housley <[e-mail]> wrote:
> I'd like to hear from the community about pushing forward with this
> proposal or dropping it.
>
> At least one other proposal was raised.  My reading of this mail list is
> that the proposal in draft-housley-two-maturity-levels has more support.

I'm assuming that the "other proposal" you mean is
draft-hardie-advance-mechanics;
if I missed a different one, please correct that mistake on my part.

First, I'm not sure that the two actually compete, except in that the community
might be unwilling to make two changes at once; mine was written with
explicit statement that it could be implemented with either a two or three
step process.

Second, I agree that draft-hardie-advance-mechanics does not have
enough support
to go forward at this time. There was some discussion of it, and I
likely should produce a new
draft.  I did not do so for this round because I did not sense anything like
enough support for it to indicate that the community had enough
interest and energy
to discuss thoroughly the change in working style (despite my personal belief
that it largely followed the current work style on the ground).

> Since the -00 cut-off for IETF 79 has passed, I am assuming that no
> other proposals are going to be raised.
>
> Should I be seeking a sponsor for this draft?
>
The document currently has an open issue (in Section 8).  Does this need
to be resolved prior to seeking a sponsor?

regards,

Ted



> Russ
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>