Re: Review of: Characterization of Proposed Standards

Olaf Kolkman <olaf@NLnetLabs.nl> Sat, 02 November 2013 23:44 UTC

Return-Path: <olaf@NLnetLabs.nl>
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 7D5EB21E811D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 16:44:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.529
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.529 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.070, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 U7UV4YhQaW82 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 16:44:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from open.nlnetlabs.nl (open.nlnetlabs.nl [IPv6:2001:7b8:206:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4613211E8143 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 16:44:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:67c:370:184:5cd9:8f8:b158:dcd4] ([IPv6:2001:67c:370:184:5cd9:8f8:b158:dcd4]) (authenticated bits=0) by open.nlnetlabs.nl (8.14.7/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rA2NhfFQ000653 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 3 Nov 2013 00:43:46 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from olaf@NLnetLabs.nl)
Authentication-Results: open.nlnetlabs.nl; dmarc=none header.from=NLnetLabs.nl
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.8.3 open.nlnetlabs.nl rA2NhfFQ000653
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nlnetlabs.nl; s=default; t=1383435830; bh=zvjc/lovemUS7OsKyGfrlz1akZ37iAWDBAlg0e2tYI0=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=plOPVUxw54Wj4P9i8TJ8VQs5dejv9wsnQpbH4w7Ls0zdxgQA5VqciMTKZWKmA7+jL HFweRjZo0idVry4OKx35KcS/YN99YIWBa8OZ3YTUSjeKyAhlgEWIlXyhcPITKx8y3C 0xl0MyB9wz4if5+NKrJv0Fu8RC680/tcChbK5XOo=
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EDAE00E6-BBCE-4859-BBD0-4E8022D3E029"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\))
Subject: Re: Review of: Characterization of Proposed Standards
From: Olaf Kolkman <olaf@NLnetLabs.nl>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJJkbjCd9M=b_gZEGk9Y3nA1KH3hFoi45Sr1Z5=UFg5HgA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2013 16:43:39 -0700
Message-Id: <9DA2994E-4357-42B2-A650-33E9BA8B4AAD@NLnetLabs.nl>
References: <5269209F.3060706@dcrocker.net> <B4B31C25-C472-41B3-AAF8-96670E0E243F@NLnetLabs.nl> <52729C1D.7010400@dcrocker.net> <CAC4RtVCewEKatJKJnBbCqgsuBjHCOHY49WoTx+y-K_zDt+Smxg@mail.gmail.com> <40AFC5D09A1926489ECFED9D7633D98A20045B@ESESSMB307.ericsson.se> <CALaySJJ_o=YTgmzsUmJRWfNwH1-5DnhyKF_xDXa8nKQ=5_-jRQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJKC+hP5SRn5-Euh7ugjRB-iQU5Wd090PKh-W+F8Y7adxQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJJkbjCd9M=b_gZEGk9Y3nA1KH3hFoi45Sr1Z5=UFg5HgA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (open.nlnetlabs.nl [IPv6:2001:7b8:206:1::53]); Sun, 03 Nov 2013 00:43:49 +0100 (CET)
Cc: "<draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified.all@tools.ietf.org>" <draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified.all@tools.ietf.org>, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@ericsson.com>, IETF Discussion <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: Sat, 02 Nov 2013 23:44:21 -0000

Barry,



[skipping to the core of the suggested changes]

>> 3.2.  Characteristics of Internet Standards
>> 
>>  A specification for which significant implementation and successful
>>  operational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the
>>  Internet Standard level.  An Internet Standard (which may simply be
>>  referred to as a Standard) is characterized by a high degree of
>>  technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified
>>  protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet
>>  community.
>> NEW
>> 3.2.  Characterization of IETF Internet Standard Specifications
>> 
>>  A specification for which significant implementation and successful
>>  operational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the
>>  Internet Standard level.  An Internet Standard (which may simply be
>>  referred to as a Standard) is characterized by a high degree of
>>  technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified
>>  protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet
>>  community.
>> 
>>  The IESG, in an IETF-wide Last Call of at least four weeks, confirms
>>  that a document advances from Proposed Standard to Internet Standard.
>>  The request for reclassification is sent to the IESG along with an
>>  explanation of how the criteria have been met.  The criteria are:
>> 
>>  (1) There are at least two independent interoperating implementations
>>      with widespread deployment and successful operational experience.
>> 
>>  (2) There are no errata against the specification that would cause a
>>      new implementation to fail to interoperate with deployed ones.
>> 
>>  (3) There are no unused features in the specification that greatly
>>      increase implementation complexity.
>> 
>>  (4) If the technology required to implement the specification
>>      requires patented or otherwise controlled technology, then the
>>      set of implementations must demonstrate at least two independent,
>>      separate and successful uses of the licensing process.
>> 
>>  After review and consideration of significant errata, the IESG will
>>  perform an IETF-wide Last Call of at least four weeks on the
>>  requested reclassification.  If there is consensus for
>>  reclassification, the RFC will be reclassified without publication of
>>  a new RFC.
>> 
>>  In a timely fashion after the expiration of the Last Call period, the
>>  IESG shall make its final determination and notify the IETF of its
>>  decision via electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list.  See
>>  Section 6.1.2 of RFC 2026.
>> 
>>  A specification that reaches the status of Standard is assigned a
>>  number in the STD series while retaining its RFC number.
>> END

I observe this is mixing characterization with process. I have been very careful to only touch the characterization in this document.

When I wrote the text in the draft I started from 6410 which says:


   The characterization of an Internet Standard remains as described in
   RFC 2026 [1], which says:

      An Internet Standard is characterized by a high degree of
      technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the
      specified protocol or service provides significant benefit to the
      Internet community.

That is the second sentence in the first paragraph from section 4.1.3 that talks about Internet Standards. The first sentence is an introduction sentence. Below is the full section from 2026 for reference:

4.1.3  Internet Standard

   A specification for which significant implementation and successful
   operational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the
   Internet Standard level.  An Internet Standard (which may simply be
   referred to as a Standard) is characterized by a high degree of
   technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified
   protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet
   community.

   A specification that reaches the status of Standard is assigned a
   number in the STD series while retaining its RFC number.


When I constructed the text in the draft I figured that the second paragraph was more of a process detail that could be left out. While that first sentence seems to be relevant for providing the context.

So really the question is whether the characterization is really out of sync with 2026/6410?

Personally I feel your suggestions are rescoping the drafts purpose.

—Olaf