Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Standardization

Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net> Thu, 11 November 2010 06:47 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
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 EB8013A68A7 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 22:47:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.562
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 vZ-iYdN2576e for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 22:47:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB2513A67DA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 22:47:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [130.129.119.146] (dhcp-7792.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.119.146]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oAB6ljlj013510 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 10 Nov 2010 22:47:53 -0800
Message-ID: <4CDB918C.8090902@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 14:47:40 +0800
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Standardization
References: <4CD967AD.80605@dcrocker.net> <3486.198.180.150.230.1289445298.squirrel@mail.smetech.net> <4CDB7026.5090903@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <4CDB7026.5090903@dcrocker.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Wed, 10 Nov 2010 22:47:55 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 06:47:32 -0000

Folks,

On 11/11/2010 12:25 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> To establish the base: It is not possible to achieve widespread use on the
> Internet without having multiple components interacting. That's called
> interoperability.
>
> However, the interoperability might be among components that are clones of a
> single code base.
>
> So our language needs to be enhanced to cover multiple implementations. And as
> long as the language hood is up, we might as well put in a turbo-booster that
> asserts the higher octane 'interoperability' word.


A hallway conversation with Russ added an item that simply had not occurred to me:

    There might be multiple implementations that rely on on undocumented 
modifications of the spec.  This means that an additional, interoperable 
implementation cannot be made purely from the specification.

Again, I believe the requirement for the document is "merely" to get the wording 
right.  I do not believe any of us differ on the actual meaning we are trying to 
achieve.  That is, I have not seen anything that indicates we have disparity 
about the intended requirement.

Test language: (*)

      (Full) Internet Standard:

      The Internet community achieves rough consensus -- on using
      the multiple, independent implementations of a specification

and

      3.3.  [Full] Internet Standard (IS)

      This is the existing final standards status, based on attainment of
      significant community acceptance, as demonstrated by use of multiple,
      independent implementations that conform to the specification.

d/

ps.  I just realized that the original language that Russ cited said "on using 
the running code of a specification".  "Of a specification" explicitly means 
that the stuff that is running is the spec and, therefore, can't really mean 
that it's using hallway agreements.  (However I think it's dandy to make the 
Section 3.3 language bullet-proofed against creative misunderstanding.)

(*) This is just from me; it hasn't been vetted with my co-authors.

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net