IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com> Sun, 11 September 2011 04:01 UTC

Return-Path: <evnikita2@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 7CE2521F8467 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 21:01:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.484
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.484 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.115, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 NtbzBY0QUU+C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 21:01:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55B6E21F8466 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 21:01:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxe6 with SMTP id 6so3963967fxe.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 21:03:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=yyskLUYlHoiHwGyTfKuwrkWq38g89gTRKu9mPrXSq3Y=; b=kM87NoQS+IGhSUAl7fHyq8tzXY6zG8CjYN5hocKJMMoWZyN2fWBDoVfHZ1PQWu4u8q xSckI2ue+qvIbF8earv+nTnlOLdhCNL5RNjqfyNPoUPnCnvMyile2l9lMXX6AXanED+4 DEKosGU2U0tOmYgC7ZGbY6typF3jYQqq91iH8=
Received: by 10.223.5.152 with SMTP id 24mr1562480fav.113.1315713797303; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 21:03:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g5sm4721228fad.19.2011.09.10.21.03.15 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 10 Sep 2011 21:03:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E6C3325.703@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 07:03:49 +0300
From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels
References: <20110728121904.2D22AD7A76F@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu> <4E5D4570.9080108@piuha.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20110902090159.09e97af0@resistor.net> <4E6147D4.2020204@santronics.com> <DF7F294AF4153D498141CBEFADB17704C352657343@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <20110906161108.GI31240@shinkuro.com> <CEDD8840-BE2D-405E-872A-271C25A9A59D@network-heretics.com> <01O5QFMUPV8S014O5Z@mauve.mrochek.com> <96633252-503F-4DCD-B6FD-B6B9DEA1FC66@network-heretics.com> <01O5RIOBEGP0014O5Z@mauve.mrochek.com> <201109100133.p8A1XFvS003894@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <3E9E22D3-9C4B-48CF-A0F1-BACD219AF582@standardstrack.com> <4E6C21CD.6080000@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E6C21CD.6080000@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 04:01:19 -0000

11.09.2011 5:49, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2011-09-11 13:26, Eric Burger wrote:
>> So should we move to a one-step process?
> There is a detailed proposal for that at
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-loughney-newtrk-one-size-fits-all-01.txt

This draft is what actually matches reality.  I'd better consider 
publishing it rather than draft-housley-two-maturity-levels, unless the 
latter or other similar proposal can demonstrate that it will find the 
way to affect the understanding of people whom RFCs are aimed to (which 
is "a Standards Track RFC is a Standard; maturity level doesn't 
matter"), predominantly implementors, and the real-life reality (which 
is one-step process) effectively (if the don't want to fit themselves to 
this understanding and this reality).

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

>
> I don't think the arguments have changed much since 2006.
>
>     Brian
>
>> On Sep 9, 2011, at 9:33 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
>>
>>> Advancing a spec is done for marketing, political, process and other
>>> reasons. E.g., to give a spec more legitimacy. Or to more clear
>>> replace an older one. Nothing wrong with that.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ietf mailing list
>> Ietf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email