IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

hector <gmail.sant9442@winserver.com> Sun, 11 September 2011 03:00 UTC

Return-Path: <sant9442@gmail.com>
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 8BA8521F8A96 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 20:00:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.334
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.334 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.265, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 20ggSqfgW5Tt for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 20:00:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yi0-f44.google.com (mail-yi0-f44.google.com [209.85.218.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAE6B21F84D1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 20:00:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yie12 with SMTP id 12so1355872yie.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 20:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=GMsatyRwM+YLDXHdBWBc5v5XQNM5Ro9xiBaW/a54KVU=; b=TODsVrxgpbFLGo1/P+GiiIN+2kMYmd6Ko9QwxmFrL9diGzMzeedyMpGqy0+vq0hxj4 OffIvMO73laJBiqYWDZfWif74KycZoPmwuHCPlmXXyxIeIUGsD8RR7N3B2TEeELdXIDy R2qOq2W87QKo7OHJTLVqeMqApBoBKuZkCQ09A=
Received: by 10.91.214.10 with SMTP id r10mr2823296agq.165.1315710158444; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 20:02:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from adsl-215-50-126.mia.bellsouth.net (99-3-147-93.lightspeed.miamfl.sbcglobal.net [99.3.147.93]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z1sm1501030anb.18.2011.09.10.20.02.37 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 10 Sep 2011 20:02:38 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: HLS <sant9442@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4E6C24E1.3040704@winserver.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 23:02:57 -0400
From: hector <gmail.sant9442@winserver.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF list discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels
References: <20110728121904.2D22AD7A76F@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu> <4E5D4570.9080108@piuha.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20110902090159.09e97af0@resistor.net> <4E6147D4.2020204@santronics.com> <DF7F294AF4153D498141CBEFADB17704C352657343@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <20110906161108.GI31240@shinkuro.com> <CEDD8840-BE2D-405E-872A-271C25A9A59D@network-heretics.com> <01O5QFMUPV8S014O5Z@mauve.mrochek.com> <96633252-503F-4DCD-B6FD-B6B9DEA1FC66@network-heretics.com> <01O5RIOBEGP0014O5Z@mauve.mrochek.com> <201109100133.p8A1XFvS003894@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <3E9E22D3-9C4B-48CF-A0F1-BACD219AF582@standardstrack.com> <126AE4FDE4FE115A77CDE6B7@[192.168.1.128]>
In-Reply-To: <126AE4FDE4FE115A77CDE6B7@[192.168.1.128]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 03:00:41 -0000

Amazing, this all seems to be a rehash of the RFC3844 WG (2002 - 2004) 
debates and discussions:

    http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement

The June 2003 quarter seems to be an interesting period of discussions 
touching based with many of the central issues.

--

John C Klensin wrote:
> Eric,
> 
> Thomas may well have a different answer but, speaking
> personally, if we have a choice between a nominal three-step
> process that is actually one-step with a few exceptions and a
> nominal two-step process that is actually one-step with a few
> exceptions, I think we would be much better off with a one-step
> process.   Ideally, we should be able to annotate that one-step
> process with how mature we think a spec is, but the "facing
> reality" situation is that, unless we can change how we and the
> marketplace do things, we have a one-step process today and
> trying to cut things from unused-three to unused-two
> accomplishes nothing other than giving us an extra opportunity
> to confirm our failure to be able to use a multi-step process.
> 
> I'd find a change to one-step a lot easier to support than a
> change to two-step, if only because moving to one-step is not
> only closer to present reality but also would give us a starting
> part for new work to express maturity (if we still care).
> Two-step neither gets us to present reality nor gets us away
> from the idea that the multistep model actually expresses
> maturity and other useful information.
> 
>     john
> 
> 
> --On Saturday, September 10, 2011 21:26 -0400 Eric Burger
> <eburger-l@standardstrack.com> wrote:
> 
>> So should we move to a one-step process?
>>
>> On Sep 9, 2011, at 9:33 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
>>
>>> Advancing a spec is done for marketing, political, process
>>> and other reasons. E.g., to give a spec more legitimacy. Or
>>> to more clear replace an older one. Nothing wrong with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email