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

[[e-mail]]

> First, I'm in full agreement with Ross.

> Second, for the record and as a response to Keith, my read of the discussion
> on the last call was the biggest group of responses said that we should move
> forward with the draft. There were two smaller groups, those with a clear
> objection and those with roughly a "no-objection" or "it does not cause harm"
> opinion (and a group who seemed to discuss orthogonal issues and not respond to
> the question). I could of course have made mistakes in this determination, but
> I thought it was rough (perhaps very rough) consensus.

FWIW, this matches my own assessment almost exactly.

> Of course, it gets more interesting if you start thinking about the reasons
> why people wanted to move forward. Keith's latest e-mail has interesting
> theories about those. I don't think anyone thinks this is the priority #1
> process fix for the IETF.

Agreed.

> For me, cleaning cruft from the IETF process RFCs is a big reason for
> supporting this work. And I must admit that we seem to be in a place where its
> very, very hard to make _any_ process RFC changes. Getting one done, even if
> its a small change would by itself be useful, IMO. Finally, I think two levels
> are enough.

Cruft elimination is also a Good Thing.

				Ned