IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net> Tue, 06 September 2011 15:39 UTC

Return-Path: <rcallon@juniper.net>
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 2912621F8C13 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 08:39:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.576
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.576 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 naOR4PqsHbJp for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 08:39:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og114.obsmtp.com (exprod7og114.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.215]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C5A821F8B74 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 08:39:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob114.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTmY+/29T5wZSMQPbhWuwVcSgl4iUSrpQ@postini.com; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 08:40:51 PDT
Received: from p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.25) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 08:38:16 -0700
Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::c126:c633:d2dc:8090%11]) with mapi; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 11:38:16 -0400
From: Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>
To: Hector Santos <hsantos@santronics.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 11:38:14 -0400
Subject: RE: Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels
Thread-Topic: Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels
Thread-Index: Acxspl7tmNqJ+zDlQjeigqMQHwBYLAAAhAWw
Message-ID: <DF7F294AF4153D498141CBEFADB17704C352657343@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net>
References: <20110728121904.2D22AD7A76F@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu> <4E5D4570.9080108@piuha.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20110902090159.09e97af0@resistor.net> <4E6147D4.2020204@santronics.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E6147D4.2020204@santronics.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 15:39:05 -0000

> Its a balance. IMV, as long as the the new two maturity level process 
> does not change the IETF "QA process" negatively, I don't see a 
> problem with it but it does sound it will necessitate a higher, more 
> rigorous document reviews.

I haven't heard anyone currently on the IESG say that the two step process would require "higher more rigorous document reviews". 

Ross

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email