IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 06 September 2011 23:36 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@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 AF09A21F8F15 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 16:36:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 NuCK-aNjlV2O for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 16:36:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCE7A21F8F11 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 16:36:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ywe9 with SMTP id 9so5176851ywe.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 16:38:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=NifIRYhhp6uqtD/kAAKX7UdRzgPpP7wxoUvwC48ZUMk=; b=Iy2/qP85YOnfA+HollqTOT5O5s3fjVbDYzHy79xwkUT1r84yUoPfJhEDXGHgZNZ+Eu p/A/AUzuOK4oztkFSQzf3jG1zmdKuhK1Beyua/biKt1tOtloY9lBG7hshPM1hjl1xazP bdQXjv3F8mk2WSspZ7MS+Ew669jW9qqrC2q7k=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.75.165 with SMTP id z25mr27595128yhd.68.1315352306366; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 16:38:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.110.174 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 16:38:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E669AB1.8030400@gmx.de>
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> <4E669AB1.8030400@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 16:38:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMB3DL2vdFPtBFCJ8RD-58fC3-H6veSWg9ycEoWpsT7qmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Who raised the bar? [Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels]
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf300fab35f9b87904ac4e52ee"
Cc: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com, ietf@ietf.org, Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.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: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 23:36:39 -0000

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>wrote:

> On 2011-09-07 00:01, 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.
>> ...
>>
>
> Well, if that's really what happened, then draft-housley-two-maturity-**levels
> seems to solve the wrong problem.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>

In at least one reading, it could be said that this draft is trying to push
against that market perception by re-lowering the bar for PS, contrary to
the market reality.  I occasionally find a little windmill tilting
refreshing, but I'm confused, Brian, as to why you both want the IESG
congratulated for adapting to that reality and simultaneously wants them to
adopt this.

But possibly a hobgoblin is preying on my little mind, despite my being
neither statesman, nor philosopher, nor divine.

Ted

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email