IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") side meeting at IETF105.)

Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Fri, 05 July 2019 15:15 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 307EA12006A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 08:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RyE8oX7EUqnJ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 08:15:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61279120033 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 08:15:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E40D338191 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 11:13:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56B4FB90 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 11:15:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") side meeting at IETF105.)
In-Reply-To: <5c9048ef-ba2b-a362-3941-82eacc664b64@mnt.se>
References: <CAL02cgToQWmOrfOxS_dc4KRtT9e0PXNzmhWZHkRUyV_3V=E-mQ@mail.gmail.com> <0856af71-4d84-09d1-834d-12ac7252420c@network-heretics.com> <CAL02cgQ9qWVUTPW=Cpx=r32k3i1PLgfp5ax0pKMdH0nKObcKTg@mail.gmail.com> <e8d28a7f-128d-e8d0-17d3-146c6ff5b546@joelhalpern.com> <CAHw9_i+UBs85P+gjcF6BJd1_WD2qFrrYCnXb4rtcG9Hepqm37w@mail.gmail.com> <796c1f6c-cd67-2cd5-9a98-9059a0e516f8@network-heretics.com> <20190704013009.dlifopcbm2umnqo7@mx4.yitter.info> <b18809df-ee98-fb29-b6c4-04ed579e163a@network-heretics.com> <20190704052335.GF3508@localhost> <CABcZeBOw6w2tm4YYFdmLwC23ufPDupt2D1Vzwjn4Pi9bbf6R-w@mail.gmail.com> <20190704192057.GI3508@localhost> <CABcZeBMC-VRfea3YqLSs6yhtEq4VtfdO5L56v87KH=vMR4y=+A@mail.gmail.com> <5c9048ef-ba2b-a362-3941-82eacc664b64@mnt.se>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2019 11:15:30 -0400
Message-ID: <18242.1562339730@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/eq8Fa7YsCKeqDdOYc_-1GnpWMXQ>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 05 Jul 2019 15:15:36 -0000

Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se> wrote:
    > I was here when MSFT suddenly announced that a particular draft of
    > pkinit was going to get shipped in Active Directory krb and that was
    > that. Would we have gotten further down the road of practical interop
    > for asymmetric key authn in kerberos had we use the same pattern of
    > work as TLS 1.3 did? Maybe we're just better at this now? I doubt it.

    > I do know that for every success story there is a case of a WGs killed
    > by a big actor who decides it is no longer going to play ball... some
    > very recently.

Thank you for bringing up additional places where we have had pain.

    > You can lead the horse to water but you can't force it to drink
    > but to what extent is flexibility wrt the publication process enabling
    > this behaviour?

My preference is the current (unfortunately slow) behaviour.

Among a tightly knit group (like QUIC), I don't think we need any formal
marker.  In the ANIMA WG, we have the GRASP protocol, in RFC-editor queue for
500+ days, because of MISREFs.  That's a pretty strong formal marker.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email