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

[SM <[e-mail]>]

At 16:01 06-09-2011, Cullen Jennings wrote:
>I don't believe the IESG raised the bar, I think the community 
>raised it in a series of IETF Last Calls. And I think this is good - 
>if this document were lowing the PS bar from what it is today, I'd 
>be strongly objecting to it. The problem in my mind is getting work 
>done quickly, not figuring out how to lower the quality of our work.

draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns-00 was published in 2001 and 
version 14 in February 2011.  There is an IPR disclosure.  If the 
proposal were to advance along the Standards Track, the following 
might be applicable:

   "If patented or otherwise controlled technology is required for
    implementation, the separate implementations must also have resulted
    from separate exercise of the licensing process."

The draft went through several Last Calls.  If I recall correctly, 
there were some objections raised during the Last Call.  I doubt 
whether the community is aware of what changes were agreed upon given 
that this is an individual submission which finally got processed 
after four months.

This is a draft which is going to be evaluated shortly.  It got the 
following comment:

   "Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2818"

I could nit-pick and say that the write-up mentioned that and the RFC 
is listed in the Downref registry.  Anyway, could someone please 
explain to me what is the rationale for flagging downrefs if the it's 
a one-step process in practice?

Is it as Sam Hartman said, a nice game of "publish that doc" and 
people have to get out their copy of the IETF rules, the IETF rules 
errata and the IETF player's magazine articles with rules commentary 
and figure out what is going on?

draft-hixie-thewebsocketprotocol-76 was submitted in May 2010.  There 
were at least two implementations.  Would it qualify for Proposed Standard?

draft-ietf-avt-srtp-not-mandatory-07 is the output of a working 
group.  One of the DISCUSSes mention that:

  "This draft seems to say that BCP 61 does not apply to RTP.  BCP 61
   describes the "Danvers Doctrine", which says that the IETF should
   standardize on the use of the best security available, regardless of
   national policies."

It's been over a year since the above point has been raised.  The 
draft has not been published yet.

draft-ietf-mboned-ssmping-08 has five DISCUSSes, one of which says:

  "The mboned charter says:
    This is not meant to be a protocol development Working Group.

   Is this not a protocol? In which other WGs has it been reviewed?"

I don't know who raised the bar.  It doesn't really matter unless 
people confuse finger pointing with problem solving.  The 
requirements frustrate implementers, which is understandable, when 
there is no relation between quality and known technical defects.

Regards,
-sm