Re: More labels for RFCs (was: what is the problem bis)
Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Fri, 29 October 2010 21:45 UTC
Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.com>
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 3F1903A6403 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 14:45:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 cSeKvvDiK0VI for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 14:45:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from m1.imap-partners.net (m1.imap-partners.net [64.13.152.131]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0167F3A67FD for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 14:45:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 72-59-59-45.pools.spcsdns.net (72-59-59-45.pools.spcsdns.net [72.59.59.45]) by m1.imap-partners.net (MOS 4.1.8-GA) with ESMTP id CII10341 (AUTH admin@network-heretics.com); Fri, 29 Oct 2010 14:47:22 -0700
X-Mirapoint-Received-SPF: 72.59.59.45 72-59-59-45.pools.spcsdns.net <moore@network-heretics.com> 0 none
X-Mirapoint-Received-SPF: 72.59.59.45 72-59-59-45.pools.spcsdns.net <moore@network-heretics.com> 0 none
X-Mirapoint-Received-SPF: 72.59.59.45 72-59-59-45.pools.spcsdns.net <moore@network-heretics.com> 0 none
X-Mirapoint-Received-SPF: 72.59.59.45 72-59-59-45.pools.spcsdns.net <moore@network-heretics.com> 0 none
Subject: Re: More labels for RFCs (was: what is the problem bis)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
In-Reply-To: <0F8149DFD16AED781A53FF21@PST.JCK.COM>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 17:47:18 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8062195B-9B83-4C73-99BB-F15F23979E71@network-heretics.com>
References: <20101026160857.3A7495B3FA4@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu> <AANLkTikcetirTVJ2KSSC_XG5Vbhq-Z5HGitJ20_xaFhH@mail.gmail.com> <20101027114726.GY45134@shinkuro.com> <006FEB08D9C6444AB014105C9AEB133F012E6FCD4407@il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com> <E3087EE1-1EE3-4B93-83B7-5CC1EDD5107C@network-heretics.com> <5D688BC2-4B8D-4C0F-8686-25AF4108C3B3@acmepacket.com> <0F8149DFD16AED781A53FF21@PST.JCK.COM>
To: John C Klensin <john@jck.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
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: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 21:45:42 -0000
On Oct 29, 2010, at 4:05 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Friday, October 29, 2010 12:20 -0400 Hadriel Kaplan > <HKaplan@acmepacket.com> wrote: > >> >> On Oct 27, 2010, at 9:57 PM, Keith Moore wrote: >> >> That's why I think we need a different set of labels, e.g. >> >> Protocol-Quality. We need a statement about the perceived >> quality of the protocol described in the document. (Is this >> protocol well-designed for the anticipated use cases, or does >> it have significant flaws (including security flaws)?) >> Applicability. We need a statement about the current >> applicability of the protocol described in the document. (Is >> ... > > Hi. > > It is difficult to imagine how these sorts of idea would work in > conjunction with RFCs given that those are explicitly archival, > never-changing documents and your suggestions seem to imply > evolving classification and comment systems. well, of course those classifications wouldn't be in the RFCs themselves (any more than our current maturity levels are). and it's quite natural that the various measures of quality/relevance/maturity of an RFC will fluctuate over time. > However, a number of similar ideas --including effectively > replacing Standards-Track Maturity levels with more descriptive > text and finer-grained comments were incorporated into a > proposal to the NEWTRK WG in 2005-2006. I think it is safe to > suggest that the reasons why the proposal never went anywhere > remain controversial, but you might find it interesting > recreational reading: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-newtrk-repurposing-isd/ thanks for the pointer; I'll take a look. Keith
- what is the problem bis Scott O. Bradner
- Re: what is the problem bis Marshall Eubanks
- RE: what is the problem bis Ross Callon
- Re: what is the problem bis Eliot Lear
- Re: what is the problem bis Keith Moore
- Re: what is the problem bis todd glassey
- Re: what is the problem bis Dave CROCKER
- Re: what is the problem bis Dave CROCKER
- RE: what is the problem bis Ross Callon
- Re: what is the problem bis Dave CROCKER
- Re: what is the problem bis John C Klensin
- Re: what is the problem bis Phillip Hallam-Baker
- RE: what is the problem bis John C Klensin
- Re: what is the problem bis Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: what is the problem bis Keith Moore
- Re: what is the problem bis Keith Moore
- Re: what is the problem bis Keith Moore
- Re: what is the problem bis Randy Presuhn
- Re: what is the problem bis Ofer Inbar
- Re: what is the problem bis Michael Richardson
- Re: what is the problem bis Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: what is the problem bis Andrew Sullivan
- RE: what is the problem bis Yoav Nir
- RE: what is the problem bis Paul Hoffman
- RE: what is the problem bis ned+ietf
- Re: what is the problem bis Eric Burger
- Re: what is the problem bis Keith Moore
- Re: what is the problem bis Yoav Nir
- Re: what is the problem bis Keith Moore
- Re: what is the problem bis t.petch
- what is the problem ter Keith Moore
- RE: what is the problem ter John E Drake
- Re: what is the problem ter Martin Rex
- More labels for RFCs (was: what is the problem bi… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: what is the problem bis Michael Richardson
- Re: what is the problem bis Keith Moore
- Re: More labels for RFCs (was: what is the proble… Richard L. Barnes
- Re: what is the problem bis Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: what is the problem bis Richard L. Barnes
- Re: what is the problem bis Dave CROCKER
- Re: More labels for RFCs (was: what is the proble… Keith Moore
- Re: what is the problem bis Keith Moore
- Re: what is the problem bis Phillip Hallam-Baker
- RE: what is the problem bis Glen Zorn
- Re: what is the problem bis Keith Moore
- Re: what is the problem bis Joel Jaeggli
- Re: what is the problem bis Yoav Nir
- Re: what is the problem bis Joel Jaeggli
- Re: what is the problem bis Keith Moore
- Re: what is the problem bis Keith Moore
- Re: More labels for RFCs Julian Reschke
- Re: More labels for RFCs Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: More labels for RFCs Julian Reschke
- Re: what is the problem bis t.petch
- Re: More labels for RFCs (was: what is the proble… John C Klensin