IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

John Leslie <john@jlc.net> Wed, 07 September 2011 00:07 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jlc.net>
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 E09F421F8DC6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 17:07:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.347
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.252, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 TY-lj4AvWAUU for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 17:07:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6037E21F8DC5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 17:07:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id B563333C21; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 20:08:55 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 20:08:55 -0400
From: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels
Message-ID: <20110907000855.GC87727@verdi>
References: <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> <CA+9kkMBig=Oe=3x=G-8YVsd49buGNWX2vmAY3wj7dVgtjf9p5g@mail.gmail.com> <03319FB4-2D6F-4E23-9C1F-4413A8CDE2B7@network-heretics.com> <CA+9kkMA8as0xnj=PkK5jcXEe6GRXRAxvif4f5MJxg6K=x7oguA@mail.gmail.com> <385B68F2-5299-4E83-BC93-CA2F0694572F@cisco.com> <533F8E8B-F09E-4CA6-9401-F06E3CB2149E@network-heretics.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <533F8E8B-F09E-4CA6-9401-F06E3CB2149E@network-heretics.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
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: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 00:07:09 -0000

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> wrote:
> On Sep 6, 2011, at 7:48 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
> 
>> I wonder if we would be better off discarding the concept of layers
>> of standards, call PS "Standards track", and instead specify a way
>> to report interoperability tests.
> 
> +1.  Perhaps along with periodically updated applicability statements.

   This is a serious proposal...

   It has been a serious proposal ever since newtrk.

   Details differ, but really not significantly: some folks want to
update 2026 to do this; others want to do it first and decide later
whether to update 2026; others want to do it and let the IESG decide
whether to use it as input to deciding about advancing levels.

   Many distinctions; no real difference...

--
John Leslie <john@jlc.net>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email