Re: PS Characterization Clarified
Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Tue, 03 September 2013 20:40 UTC
Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@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 0305F11E813F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Sep 2013 13:40:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.009
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.009 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.031, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 khzpFPPUIn0t for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Sep 2013 13:40:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vc0-x22c.google.com (mail-vc0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5065911E8126 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Sep 2013 13:40:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id m17so4437289vca.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Sep 2013 13:40:01 -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=5H3F/InRyS2yxuLiXeMUpgwQDAL69PUVLzpfpnUK4sM=; b=llve+yRlbV1vePw9QbT16v6KRTffywgk6PxrR0V8hkQ5UudEZKxAsqVZj/m1zz73BH YmwywFYlNJ7Imkv+dGwqEyCMj9AUFHhZA79Hpl8gjvCzdSh1cEqYXXEzNMh2JiJYWmFS ScTijBlCXp7HJHawHssbu7alG+yt2Sf+VULGk8BnwIjw22W7p8iFfapmO7yErm/V3B9j xeoXp3WOcFXHJwQZiimIQEjQtRO6iC87XiGHYz/yOc8lX3tkbNOymknOOEv1nXpfd3bm B1noH9z7/5axW/bTPQ1KodpEcJliPrnW7geuE6PTsuGa4hvQaWUzlcJQevPfn9n04B5J RjeA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.220.46.72 with SMTP id i8mr30400946vcf.10.1378240801785; Tue, 03 Sep 2013 13:40:01 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: by 10.58.215.16 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Sep 2013 13:40:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <9B5010D3-EA47-49AD-B9D0-08148B7428FC@piuha.net>
References: <B8F661D1-1C45-4A4B-9EFE-C7E32A7654E7@NLnetLabs.nl> <9B5010D3-EA47-49AD-B9D0-08148B7428FC@piuha.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 16:40:01 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: nsEJtsEuZeeSD62VgXDIUq12UII
Message-ID: <CAC4RtVDXVqZkCi1stmuoxawUVDi6+uG-bXWp36CM6-bsqNjiew@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: PS Characterization Clarified
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: IETF list <ietf@ietf.org>, Scott O Bradner <sob@sobco.com>
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: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 20:40:03 -0000
I mostly agree with this draft, but I have a concern. Let's anchor that concern off of this bit that Jari said: > Secondly, the other obvious action we could take is to go back to the original > mode of operation, i.e., making PS RFCs truly early and somewhat untested > specifications. I am personally opposed to that on the following grounds. First, > it would not change the fact that a large part of Internet technology today runs > on PS RFCs, and Olaf's problem with getting these RFCs recognised would > continue. Second, while I think we need to keep adjusting the level of review > performed by the IESG and in IETF Last Call (we sometimes overdo it), I think > broad review is actually useful. It's certainly clear to all of us that most PS specs are far more mature than what we thought about when we wrote RFC 2026. The only concern I have is that once we do this -- declare that PS is always more mature than that -- we can't go back. Do we *really* want to say that we will never again approve a PS spec that's partially baked? This is painting us into the room where PS is mature and robust. If we like being in that room, that's fine. But it removes the "IESG can put fuzzy stuff out as PS if it thinks that's the right thing to do" option. It says that IETF PS specs are "at least as mature as final standards from other" SDOs. Mostly, that's true. But it doesn't have to be. After this, it would have to be, always, for every PS spec. Are we *sure* that's what we want? Barry
- PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Jari Arkko
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Scott O Bradner
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Brian E Carpenter
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified John C Klensin
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Jari Arkko
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Scott Brim
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Jari Arkko
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Scott O Bradner
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Barry Leiba
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Scott O. Bradner
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Scott Brim
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Ted Lemon
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Barry Leiba
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Randy Bush
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Spencer Dawkins
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified S Moonesamy
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Barry Leiba
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Carsten Bormann
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Scott O Bradner
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified John C Klensin
- RE: PS Characterization Clarified Adrian Farrel
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Carsten Bormann
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Barry Leiba
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified John C Klensin
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified John C Klensin
- Why we don't want to actually replace 2026 (was: … S Moonesamy
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Dave Cridland
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Alexey Melnikov
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Scott Brim
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified John C Klensin
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified John C Klensin
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: Why we don't want to actually replace 2026 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Pete Resnick
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Scott O. Bradner
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Pete Resnick
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified John C Klensin
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified John C Klensin
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Scott O Bradner
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Pete Resnick
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Jari Arkko