Re: Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Sunday, September 11, 2011 11:57 -0400 Russ Housley
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> I think you will see that this question was discussed at least
> once.  We asked about moving to a one-level maturity model
> instead.  The conclusion was that it was possible to go from a
> two-level to a one-level in the future if that is appropriate.
> However, if we go straight to a one-level now, and then learn
> that a two-level would have been better, we would be stuck.

But, if we go from a three-level to a two-level now, without
compelling evidence that it would make an improvement, and then
learn that a three-level would have been better, we would also
be stuck.   I'm not sure I see the difference between the two
cases.

But I also don't see any advantage in prolonging the discussion.
If I correctly understand Jari's note, the IESG has decided that
there is adequate consensus for this move.  Either people will
appeal that decision after it is formally announced or they
won't.  I would hope that, even if there is an appeal, it would
not reopen the discussions we have been having over and over
again.  If no one does, or if any appeal that is ultimately
filed is ultimately rejected, my hope is that we can all pull
together to try to make this work.

     john