IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: prerequisite for change (was Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels)

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com> Sun, 30 January 2011 16:03 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@shinkuro.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 439403A699E for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 08:03:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.349
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 2EhTjxQ6VJUC for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 08:03:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 757D03A696E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 08:03:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from crankycanuck.ca (external.shinkuro.com [66.92.164.104]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9D6691ECB42D; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 16:06:29 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 11:06:28 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Subject: Re: prerequisite for change (was Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels)
Message-ID: <20110130160628.GD39423@shinkuro.com>
References: <20110129223900.60C00817786@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu> <AANLkTinLzBs7P2Fw-U2pNVOTqdG-nOOpYNNTMU40QK+2@mail.gmail.com> <20110130145814.GA39423@shinkuro.com> <F3C3FE2A-3DCD-46B2-8E4D-B557AD22A2DC@network-heretics.com> <20110130153551.GB39423@shinkuro.com> <4D458898.8090008@dcrocker.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4D458898.8090008@dcrocker.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
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: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 16:03:19 -0000

On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 07:49:44AM -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>> Not on my part.  I'm merely observing that, if the claim is that you can't
>> alter deployed protocols, then there's no reason to say that we need two
>> maturity levels, because in fact nothing will advance past the first stage
>> anyway.
>
> The current proposal specifies a second maturity level that does not 
> permit changing the technical specification.

Yes, I know.  I fail completely to see why anyone would ever do the
work for such movement of maturity level.  The proposal seems to me to
be something along the lines of giving gold stars to protocols with
people who are willing to do the busywork.  I don't have any special
objection to the proposal, and I don't really have strong feelings
about whether it goes anywhere.  But I don't believe it will change
things very much, and it feels to me more like a bureaucratic
improvement than something that helps IETF participants and consumers
of IETF protocols.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email