IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 26 October 2010 14:38 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
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 26D273A67A1 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 07:38:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.939
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.939 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.340, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 CA7qo+NfLj6t for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 07:38:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9E4443A6948 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 07:38:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 26 Oct 2010 14:39:59 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.143]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp065) with SMTP; 26 Oct 2010 16:39:59 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/3FOwyaqD36H4KzbGrqYylAhRposA0d4HGBz6Nvv YqYsmPf+u1foQY
Message-ID: <4CC6E83B.9010808@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:39:55 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.11) Gecko/20101013 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Subject: Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels
References: <20101026024811.BD2AD5AC74F@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu> <665140E6-F4EF-4F7E-8973-984CF3096694@standardstrack.com> <4CC6E63D.6080703@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <4CC6E63D.6080703@dcrocker.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net>, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
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: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 14:38:15 -0000

On 26.10.2010 16:31, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> ...
> This seems to be the core idea driving support for this specification.
>
> Unfortunately, there is nothing in the proposed change that will affect
> this goal.
>
> The idea seems to be that "simplifying" the later part of the labeling
> model will somehow cause those controlling production of an initial
> version of a spec to get it produced more quickly.
> ...

Maybe some of the current IESG members could offer their opinion about 
*why* the barriers for PS appear to be much higher than they used to be?

Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email