Re: prerequisite for change (was Re:
Martin Rex <mrex@sap.com> Wed, 02 February 2011 01:36 UTC
Return-Path: <mrex@sap.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 D28593A6B5C for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 17:36:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.154
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.154 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.095, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 2lsnIgbcGfKs for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 17:36:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpde01.sap-ag.de (smtpde01.sap-ag.de [155.56.68.170]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBAA83A68D8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 17:36:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.sap.corp by smtpde01.sap-ag.de (26) with ESMTP id p121dlXM012160 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 2 Feb 2011 02:39:47 +0100 (MET)
From: Martin Rex <mrex@sap.com>
Message-Id: <201102020139.p121dl7E005388@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>
Subject: Re: prerequisite for change (was Re:
To: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 02:39:47 +0100
In-Reply-To: <4D44AA6C.8060003@gmail.com> from "Brian E Carpenter" at Jan 30, 11 01:01:48 pm
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SAP: out
Cc: sob@harvard.edu, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: mrex@sap.com
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: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 01:36:33 -0000
Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > The bar for PS has crept up, IMHO, precisely because the bar > for DS/STD has appeared too high to be readily attainable. Lowering the bar will result in the I-Ds on which the first rush of implementations are currently being based on becoming the PS document. But I fail to see how a lowered bar for PS would encourage folks to tackle DS. Frankly, I believe just the opposite is going to happen. For many vendors, the working model is switched from "development mode" to "maintenance mode" as soon as the product is shipped. And when that switch happens, most of the existing resources are reassigned to new features, rather than improving stuff that is in maintenance mode. And when DS/STD are collapsed into one and the requirements for the new STD are at least as high as for the old DS, then the gap between the new PS and the new STD will be much larger than between old PS and old DS, resulting in two problems: more resistence from early implementors to change the document, and less resources from the vendors to improve a document describing a product that has already shipped. The ones who profit most from an improved document would be those vendors that haven't implemented or shipped yet, and many of these are not active in the WG or even in the IETF at all. The reliably predictable outcome of lowering the bar for PS is that there will be new PS documents with significantly lower quality. But so far I've not seen any remotely convincing rationale why the change of PS would improve the likelihood for PS->STD transitions. Personally, I believe it will have just the opposite effect, considering that a non-marginal fraction of us work for large organizations and how these usually operate. -Martin
- prerequisite for change (was Re: draft-housley-tw… Scott O. Bradner
- Re: prerequisite for change (was Re: draft-housle… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: prerequisite for change (was Re: draft-housle… John C Klensin
- Re: prerequisite for change (was Re: draft-housle… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: prerequisite for change (was Re: draft-housle… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: prerequisite for change (was Re: draft-housle… Keith Moore
- Re: prerequisite for change (was Re: draft-housle… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: prerequisite for change (was Re: draft-housle… Keith Moore
- Re: prerequisite for change (was Re: draft-housle… Dave CROCKER
- Re: prerequisite for change (was Re: draft-housle… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: prerequisite for change (was Re: draft-housle… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: prerequisite for change (was Re: draft-housle… Dave CROCKER
- Re: prerequisite for change (was Re: Martin Rex
- Re: prerequisite for change (was Re: Phillip Hallam-Baker