As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis
Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Wed, 27 September 2006 09:48 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GSW24-00021y-B8; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 05:48:48 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GSW22-00021s-9Q for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 05:48:46 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com ([171.71.176.117]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GSW1x-0004W7-Ue for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 05:48:46 -0400
Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Sep 2006 02:48:41 -0700
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k8R9mfrg014085 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 02:48:41 -0700
Received: from imail.cisco.com (sjc12-sbr-sw3-3f5.cisco.com [172.19.96.182]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k8R9mfYp027936 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 02:48:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [212.254.247.4] (ams3-vpn-dhcp540.cisco.com [10.61.66.28]) by imail.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k8R9bwl9013905 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 02:37:59 -0700
Message-ID: <451A48F7.2010806@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 11:48:39 +0200
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Macintosh/20060909)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3.cisco.com; header.From=lear@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com verified; );
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=3261; t=1159350521; x=1160214521; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=lear@cisco.com; z=From:Eliot=20Lear=20<lear@cisco.com> |Subject:As=20Promised,=20an=20attempt=20at=202026bis; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3DEvD9plJd9kqIoBonQnhbdma/rlU=3D; b=gOZNig3sXZKA7nyBiyp2/9oEOv/6x14mTCkysj1X3SH5uP3LCvOoYs74LyncIRXnIwVvvT5s 7qCOGmf5E16IVJXrjaIiaiCETJxReOmmrOV7IVmkw18IhleZFBuK/Kg7;
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 02ec665d00de228c50c93ed6b5e4fc1a
Subject: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Please find in draft-lear-ietf-rfc2026bis-00.txt a preliminary revision of, well, RFC 2026. It contains the following changes: 1. A new two step process for standardization where the second step is optional. In other words, you get an STD # at the first step. This is a bit of compromise position. The idea is to reflect reality of the existing ONE STEP process but allow that some might wish to indicate that a standard is indeed more mature. 2. A suggested mapping from PS/DS/IS is included. 3. A request is made for appropriate relabelling. 4. There is no mandatory timeline for the IESG to reconsider standards on that first step, but they may do so in a manner of their choosing after the two year mark. 5. Intellectual Property considerations have been removed and now reference BCPs 78 and 79. These documents have changed several times and I imagine will evolve again. There should be no need to rev or update 2026bis based on such changes. 6. RFC 2026 actually says that one needn't submit an Internet-Draft in order for the RFC Editor to consider publishing an independent submission, but it DOES say that if you submit just a text the Editor will create an Internet Draft. We've changed that so all RFCs should first be Internet Drafts. 7. Some examples are updated to refer to more relevant standards (e.g., Goodbye, DECNET). There are other modest changes. At this point in time, Scott Bradner and I solicit community input. While discussion on the IETF main list might be a good starting point, if it seems to go on for some period of time, we will find another list for this purpose. If we find substantial support, we will ask the IESG to advance the document. Scott and I argue that 2026 must be revised and not merely updated because standards maturity issues are splattered across 2026. There are a few known problems with the draft: * Currently the new maturity levels are Level 1 and Level 2. The problem with this is that if someone in the future for some reason wants to try a three step process, there's no room for another level. We'll come up with schnazzier names (your suggestions welcome - perhaps we could have a name that standard standard contest ;-). * As currently written the document does not specify how to handle the case when one is updating a mature version of a standard with an immature version. Take for example RFCs 82[12] and 28[12]. I have some ideas as to how to handle this case, but your comments are most welcome. * There is a typo in the draft- my intention was for L2 standards to require two interoperable implementations, not three. * The Acknowledgment section needs updating already. Mike O'Dell first and Fred Baker later have espoused ideas that come close to this, Ran Atkinson advised a similar proposal this year, and Scott Brim has spotted some existing problems. If you would like a set of imperfect contextual diffs, you can find them at http://www.ofcourseimright.com/pages/lear/2026bisdiffs.txt. Regards, Eliot _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis Eliot Lear
- Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis Sam Hartman
- Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis Frank Ellermann
- Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis John C Klensin
- Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis Ned Freed
- Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis Keith Moore
- Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis Eliot Lear
- Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis Keith Moore
- Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis John C Klensin
- Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis Eliot Lear
- Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis Keith Moore
- Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis John Leslie
- Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis C. M. Heard
- Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis Sam Hartman
- Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis Frank Ellermann
- Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis Eliot Lear
- Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis Eliot Lear
- Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis Keith Moore
- Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis Eliot Lear
- Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis Dave Cridland
- Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis Keith Moore
- Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis Eliot Lear
- Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis John C Klensin
- Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis Thomas Narten
- Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis Eric Rosen
- Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis Eliot Lear
- Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis Bob Braden
- Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis Jeffrey Hutzelman
- Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis John C Klensin
- Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis Eliot Lear
- Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis Brian E Carpenter
- Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis bmanning
- draft-carpenter-rfc2026-critique-02.txt (was: As … C. M. Heard
- Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis John C Klensin
- Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis Brian E Carpenter
- Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis John C Klensin
- Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis Jeffrey Hutzelman
- Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis Brian E Carpenter
- Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis Douglas Otis