Re: PS Characterization Clarified
Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Mon, 16 September 2013 14:43 UTC
Return-Path: <barryleiba@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 7E1B621F9A5F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 07:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.983
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.983 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.005, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, 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 gCvk7vXNi9Es for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 07:43:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x22c.google.com (mail-la0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81B6221F9A2D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 07:43:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id eo20so3283266lab.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 07:43:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=4TEVAdgf215MMrfbUgEVZeVYBuW7Ru84GB03oqgq9Xw=; b=eAAGKKr6f56B3GSCxxSvW+9oYW4Uknw/WMhU/q5xwa1eO1JwTN7oQLIpk5Brl1r4YK dUD2K2a6kVq51Go97lE+OKUlIV5It1bKPGPNqu2oXtUrLFOVT4Oev5j4IwlZoeVQez0Q JuRtQZo46NwoBavo39koug7lmtxGfWnylxc+VbXkCNotktOUzLU3W5qz5Vz7UUySMazH aD4+q+yXoCrlnOWOKytYFMEuPX8EVcEM+noEfW36p9Z01+//jBIXEhtAwLj7hDggsIvO 1cN0Rja7TfEd8vF84obPSvCAmtq0wqN75TL1IHWhXpSWH0Sy1rl3XP7XOrk7ZE8crHdS W0sw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.158.225 with SMTP id wx1mr1682914lbb.37.1379342586353; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 07:43:06 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.112.130.39 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 07:43:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6A29D567-0C5A-4CB4-ABDF-450D52D2C642@NLnetLabs.nl>
References: <B8F661D1-1C45-4A4B-9EFE-C7E32A7654E7@NLnetLabs.nl> <9B5010D3-EA47-49AD-B9D0-08148B7428FC@piuha.net> <CAC4RtVDXVqZkCi1stmuoxawUVDi6+uG-bXWp36CM6-bsqNjiew@mail.gmail.com> <EC75AB54-8B11-42B9-8049-F70D09DB1775@NLnetLabs.nl> <CAC4RtVDj3tBChrJBiBiD6uwOtGRJHLDYeh62XbERrHp0i1Fmfg@mail.gmail.com> <522761EB.2000002@gmail.com> <13BBB594-4510-4903-917B-67D39F60E2BD@NLnetLabs.nl> <A87B7462DC459B3D64373984@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <6A29D567-0C5A-4CB4-ABDF-450D52D2C642@NLnetLabs.nl>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 10:43:06 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 1tWKgI3-wOmnTEzFVrm0mE6ESUg
Message-ID: <CALaySJK5f+ozCMUnVRXHDq9Vdx699LJXKGvkR40BxkgYCv9KwA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: PS Characterization Clarified
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Olaf Kolkman <olaf@nlnetlabs.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>, IETF list <ietf@ietf.org>, Scott O Bradner <sob@sobco.com>, SM Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.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, 16 Sep 2013 14:43:08 -0000
> Yeah it is a thin line. But the language was introduced to keep a > current practice possible (as argued by Barry I believe). Yes, that was my concern. > I see where you are going. > > <draft Proposed rewrite> > > While commonly less mature specifications will be published as > Informational or Experimental RFCs, the IETF may, in > exceptional cases, publish a specification that still contains areas for improvement or > certain uncertainties about whether the best engineering choices are made. In those > cases that fact will be clearly communicated in the document prefereably on the front page > of the RFC e.g. in the introduction or a separate statement. > > </draft> > > I hope that removing the example of the IESG statement makes clear that this > is normally part of the development process. I think that version is just fine too, with the typo in "preferably" corrected. John, to give you the context again: I agree that we're normally requiring much more of PS documents than we used to, and that it's good that we document that and let external organizations know. At the same time, we are sometimes proposing things that we know not to be fully baked (some of these came out of the sieve, imapext, and morg working groups, for example), but we *do* want to propose them as standards, not make them Experimental. I want to be sure we have a way to continue to do that. The text Olaf proposes is, I think, acceptable for that. Barry
- PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Jari Arkko
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Scott O Bradner
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Brian E Carpenter
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified John C Klensin
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Jari Arkko
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Scott Brim
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Jari Arkko
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Scott O Bradner
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Barry Leiba
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Scott O. Bradner
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Scott Brim
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Ted Lemon
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Barry Leiba
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Randy Bush
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Spencer Dawkins
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified S Moonesamy
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Barry Leiba
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Carsten Bormann
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Scott O Bradner
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified John C Klensin
- RE: PS Characterization Clarified Adrian Farrel
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Carsten Bormann
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Barry Leiba
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified John C Klensin
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified John C Klensin
- Why we don't want to actually replace 2026 (was: … S Moonesamy
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Dave Cridland
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Alexey Melnikov
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Scott Brim
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified John C Klensin
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified John C Klensin
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: Why we don't want to actually replace 2026 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Pete Resnick
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Scott O. Bradner
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Pete Resnick
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified John C Klensin
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified John C Klensin
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Scott O Bradner
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Pete Resnick
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Jari Arkko