IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Who raised the bar? [Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels]

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Tue, 06 September 2011 22:10 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.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 25F8E21F8EC5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 15:10:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.463
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.463 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.136, 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 bKLkPQPu-OjP for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 15:10:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out4.smtp.messagingengine.com (out4.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E0ED21F8EB3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 15:10:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.43]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAA7625C24; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 18:12:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend2.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([10.202.2.161]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 06 Sep 2011 18:12:41 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id :references:to; s=smtpout; bh=Cga3TwROwcmXbzaLCzfY/iEYBtk=; b=GG Y4X5vPzJ6nkoD7yuLKn/UCG4ZCDnJOnYBNrUh1sH0MpfL5VWVjvI4ioks359+5t/ Ctvi1Qfyr5pxKGrILUckM9V4r+Hay8vq/JWgrsWm65j3WFEGRU+Aupd88Q539Fw9 5kOrWQ24mqjVJfee8KkuXD2bskgqrFXiTSZ3h9uh8=
X-Sasl-enc: MopNHau1gGZ7jHZwLINIeGDt9zkJEVtF34X1GwkwZTW3 1315347161
Received: from host65-16-145-177.birch.net (host65-16-145-177.birch.net [65.16.145.177]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id BFF1D8E0282; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 18:12:40 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Who raised the bar? [Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels]
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E669828.1090304@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 18:12:40 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3868BD6A-3B5B-4B93-8D1F-0EF60A6EF58F@network-heretics.com>
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> <CA+9kkMBig=Oe=3x=G-8YVsd49buGNWX2vmAY3wj7dVgtjf9p5g@mail.gmail.com> <4E669828.1090304@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, ietf@ietf.org
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: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 22:10:55 -0000

On Sep 6, 2011, at 6:01 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> On 2011-09-07 09:35, Ted Hardie wrote:
> ...
>> My personal opinion for some time has been that we ought to recognize that
>> the previous PS moved into "WG draft" years ago and that anything named an
>> RFC should be recognized as something that market will consider a standard.
> 
> And who raised the bar? It wasn't the IESG, it was the market, and more
> specifically the product managers and IT managers who adopted RFC conformance
> as their criterion.
> 
> I'm a bit fed up with the IESG being blamed for this, rather than being
> congratulated on adapting to it.

+1.

IESG has been doing its job.

More broadly, no system of rules governing decision-making can work well in the absence of (a) some flexibility in the interpretation in the rules; and (b) competent, conscientious, well-intended people who will interpret those rules in such a way as to get appropriate and useful results.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email