IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Scott O. Bradner" <sob@harvard.edu> Sat, 10 September 2011 23:28 UTC

Return-Path: <sob@harvard.edu>
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 6F19921F84D9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 16:28:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.742
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.742 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.142, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 ymo5cbO736Lw for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 16:28:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from golem.sobco.com (golem.sobco.com [136.248.127.162]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5B3C21F84D4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 16:28:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by golem.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BB91724897D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 19:30:36 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Subject: Re: Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels
From: "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@harvard.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4E6BE970.90501@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 19:30:35 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BA702653-DA63-4743-94A8-ADCC93DE3EF2@harvard.edu>
References: <20110728121904.2D22AD7A76F@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu> <4E5D4570.9080108@piuha.net> <85BEBBFE35549CAF8000DCE9@PST.JCK.COM> <DF7F294AF4153D498141CBEFADB17704C349D75F42@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <197BAAF4-B98F-4C7C-BC48-E311869CFE28@network-heretics.com> <4E615925.1060506@piuha.net> <01O5L1H6RLZ600RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> <tslwrdgtaxy.fsf@mit.edu> <4E6BE970.90501@gmail.com>
To: IETF-Discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
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: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 23:28:41 -0000

> On 2011-09-11 08:11, Sam Hartman wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> I do not think the following types of comments should be considered as
>> objections when judging this sort of consensus:
>> 
>> 
>> 2) This will not do any good

now lets see, this argument seems to be that the fact that a particular process change is useless should not 
stop the IETF from adopting the change

this argument would be nonsense if applied to a proposal for a technical standard - i.e. the 
IETF should adopt a technical standard that is known to be useless -- it is no less nonsense when
applied in this case - changes for the sake of publishing new bits should not be what the IETF
spends its time on

Scott

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email