IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Tue, 26 October 2010 15:42 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 505B33A6888 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 08:42:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.954
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.954 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
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 jTOBtwifTrUK for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 08:42:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [67.23.6.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 936633A68B9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 08:42:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from marajade.sandelman.ca (unknown [199.7.156.34]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95A0B344BC; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:47:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from marajade.sandelman.ca (marajade.sandelman.ca [127.0.0.1]) by marajade.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97FDC98B09; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 09:12:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: sob@harvard.edu
Subject: Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels
In-Reply-To: <20101026115954.13D815B23A6@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu>
References: <20101026115954.13D815B23A6@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.1; nmh 1.1; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 21)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 09:12:44 -0400
Message-ID: <16610.1288098764@marajade.sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Cc: 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 15:42:10 -0000

>>>>> "Scott" == Scott O Bradner <sob@harvard.edu> writes:
    >> The known problem is it takes well over four years to get anything
    >> published.

    Scott> ...

    >> What I *am* hoping is that with two, clearly defined maturity levels, we
    >> can go back to publishing Proposed Standards in about a year

    Scott> the only way that could happen is if the IESG were to change their ways a lot
    Scott> and permit less complete documents to be published as PS

so, from this point of view, two-maturity is a step backwards, because
it makes the new PS seem even more 'mature', and therefore higher
barrier to entry.   I don't have an answer for this.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email