Re: PS Characterization Clarified

Olaf Kolkman <olaf@NLnetLabs.nl> Fri, 13 September 2013 18:50 UTC

Return-Path: <olaf@NLnetLabs.nl>
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 DC94211E814D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 11:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 sSvUjgyB63D4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 11:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from open.nlnetlabs.nl (open.nlnetlabs.nl [IPv6:2001:7b8:206:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC63811E812F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 11:50:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:7b8:206:1:7211:24ff:fe8c:627a] ([IPv6:2001:7b8:206:1:7211:24ff:fe8c:627a]) (authenticated bits=0) by open.nlnetlabs.nl (8.14.7/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r8DIo8qC019804 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 13 Sep 2013 20:50:09 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from olaf@NLnetLabs.nl)
Authentication-Results: open.nlnetlabs.nl; dmarc=none header.from=NLnetLabs.nl
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.8.3 open.nlnetlabs.nl r8DIo8qC019804
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nlnetlabs.nl; s=default; t=1379098212; bh=qS/tBVxZ37fkBDmArQtDi4Dc4cpG8/YOoJl/5caXFlI=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=Csht+lRiOsskD+xoX+pkjMdu2PFLMoE2kbzVFbAJvklwte3LNggVx085BfRphvE1U 1vth75NqLHtXgLSgGCYOcZtdUbbx29dtMcBuHOC7OFQr+O7EQYPC5kKQQDSTRdITU9 li30QewTeyTT9wkUo0cff2jfzx+pCo7PzsHIth7E=
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F582BAB0-35D2-468A-AF29-1FE45C21CAB8"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
Subject: Re: PS Characterization Clarified
From: Olaf Kolkman <olaf@NLnetLabs.nl>
In-Reply-To: <D99DB3AF-B714-4576-9DEB-9F984BC23CC6@tzi.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 20:50:08 +0200
Message-Id: <8445E2F7-74BA-4168-92AC-46E9C2E90084@NLnetLabs.nl>
References: <B8F661D1-1C45-4A4B-9EFE-C7E32A7654E7@NLnetLabs.nl> <9B5010D3-EA47-49AD-B9D0-08148B7428FC@piuha.net> <CAC4RtVDXVqZkCi1stmuoxawUVDi6+uG-bXWp36CM6-bsqNjiew@mail.gmail.com> <EC75AB54-8B11-42B9-8049-F70D09DB1775@NLnetLabs.nl> <CAC4RtVDj3tBChrJBiBiD6uwOtGRJHLDYeh62XbERrHp0i1Fmfg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPv4CP-DXq0=FX9nFDCo0HXvWKNRTJ+8ay=m7J=JyRxJciN-vw@mail.gmail.com> <522761EB.2000002@gmail.com> <13BBB594-4510-4903-917B-67D39F60E2BD@NLnetLabs.nl> <D99DB3AF-B714-4576-9DEB-9F984BC23CC6@tzi.org>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (open.nlnetlabs.nl [IPv6:2001:7b8:206:1::53]); Fri, 13 Sep 2013 20:50:09 +0200 (CEST)
Cc: IETF list <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 18:50:15 -0000

On 13 sep. 2013, at 20:03, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:

> On Sep 13, 2013, at 16:56, Olaf Kolkman <olaf@NLnetLabs.nl> wrote:
> 
>> *   Added the Further Consideration section based on discussion on the
>>   mailinglist.
> 
> I believe the current document is fine for a major part of the IETF standards activities.
> 
> It is, however, important to keep in mind that the IETF is not a homogeneous organization, not even within each of the quite different areas.  Section 4 seems to try to open up the straightjacket created by section 3 a little bit again, but the way it does this is probably the wrong approach.

Note this is not trying to change… I is trying to document what we do now. 

On https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2011/04/Bormann.pdf

I am trying to see what one gets if one translates the fallacies into positive actions, or answer the question on how do you cope with the fallacy. I notice that your draft observes but doesn't seem to recommend. That is not a value judgement on the text btw but it doesn't give me insight in if 'this is probably wrong' what is the right way? And more important, is there any indication we can get there? I believe we had several tries in doing something different (better, was the intention of all those that took part in that debate) but we never reached consensus. That is why this is not trying to change, but tries to document the realities.


Have a nice weekend.

--Olaf