Re: PS Characterization Clarified

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 02 September 2013 20:07 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 B052421F9E63 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2013 13:07:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.549
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 30BLWXqv3JWq for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2013 13:07:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x234.google.com (mail-pd0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C57DB21F9C7B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2013 13:07:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f180.google.com with SMTP id y10so5065683pdj.25 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Sep 2013 13:07:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=KkCm6f+pm7zBX0XhB+epySwwDD0UqAIbCgYxp93tdUA=; b=ucWpRwCIk3rJ9LmE0nYDZisqcnxK5yvzKFfptZquugygHdTYqjkoRGLs6LTYcira+p pstP3wgwYHm38Itu6PypbT4jgWRS+TWZmvdfYbhlHC2aW6rQKrxQss833VJuPLMKU69q eOyf/Jl67CtsNkGrxh8C9A/sXGgPkWs58eN6oZvbMLR+JF6t5aMsWb89Z2qskkJTfesH cP8HoRZaLEa2xCA+gXBK7xHRoF1hD+8eO+2VY4nkxpzExy9SkO6JdTE2HgkvoO94hBe2 d3MmeZreWjpFRViAJK1hlMx026ijZE8+rT7GHncNHNr7uTnxZv5+NPWOp5gC3aGqaWwA 9IjQ==
X-Received: by 10.66.152.11 with SMTP id uu11mr9679260pab.124.1378152466536; Mon, 02 Sep 2013 13:07:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] (27.200.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.200.27]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id yo2sm19041747pab.8.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 02 Sep 2013 13:07:45 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5224F00C.3070306@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 08:07:40 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Subject: Re: PS Characterization Clarified
References: <B8F661D1-1C45-4A4B-9EFE-C7E32A7654E7@NLnetLabs.nl> <9B5010D3-EA47-49AD-B9D0-08148B7428FC@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <9B5010D3-EA47-49AD-B9D0-08148B7428FC@piuha.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 20:07:48 -0000

Hi Jari,

On 03/09/2013 02:23, Jari Arkko wrote:

...
> At the time of this writing, the IETF operates as if the
> Proposed Standard was the last chance for the to ensure the
> quality of the technology and the clarity of the standards
> document.  

There's a point that I think should be made here, something like:

In practice, interoperable implementations are commonly based on
Proposed Standard documents, so whatever design defects those
documents have tend to become part of the interoperable network,
perhaps in the form of work-arounds. Similarly, in today's
Internet, any security defects tend to be exploited at an early
stage. Fixing design and security issues in widely deployed code
may be difficult or impossible in practice. Therefore, there is
now very strong pressure to make the Proposed Standard as mature
as possible, rather than being just good enough to meet the RFC
2026 requirements.

> The result is that IETF Proposed Standards 
> approved over the last decade or more have had extensive
> review. 

Exactly.

   Brian