Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Standardization

Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net> Thu, 11 November 2010 10:55 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92F033A69EE for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 02:55:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.566
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QCahFiLyRjCX for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 02:55:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DF123A69E4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 02:55:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [130.129.69.41] (dhcp-4529.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.69.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oABAtioF027759 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 11 Nov 2010 02:55:52 -0800
Message-ID: <4CDBCBAC.2040408@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:55:40 +0800
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Subject: Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Standardization
References: <4CD967AD.80605@dcrocker.net> <3486.198.180.150.230.1289445298.squirrel@mail.smetech.net> <4CDB7026.5090903@dcrocker.net> <4CDB918C.8090902@dcrocker.net> <1366.198.180.150.230.1289463839.squirrel@mail.smetech.net>
In-Reply-To: <1366.198.180.150.230.1289463839.squirrel@mail.smetech.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Thu, 11 Nov 2010 02:55:53 -0800 (PST)
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 10:55:24 -0000

On 11/11/2010 4:23 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
> This is a significant improvement from my perspective.  We need a
> mechanism to implement it.  The mechanism does not need to be heavy
> weight, and it might be as simple as some statements in a Last Call,
> allowing the community to support or challenge them.


If I understand both your statement here and your comment in the hallway 
discussion, I suspect that the requirement would be satisfied by having various 
folk submit a form with some standard language on it, making an attestation 
along the lines of the language I submitted.

Said more plainly:  Some people would need to claim that the developed or know 
of an independent implementation that conforms to the spec and works with other 
specs.

Forgetting about the task of agreeing on the exact language, would this suffice?

I guess the Last Call message would include something like:

     The following individuals and/or organization
     have stated that [...]:


Yes?

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net