IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: PS Characterization Clarified

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 03 September 2013 21:14 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
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 0A50B11E811F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Sep 2013 14:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.588
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.011, 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 6UDQoekHCDNW for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Sep 2013 14:14:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og103.obsmtp.com (exprod7og103.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.159]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E7EB11E80D9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Sep 2013 14:14:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob103.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUiZRLxsnPO0Aa5z5qRMGAprUvIyAHACp@postini.com; Tue, 03 Sep 2013 14:14:24 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 915621B81BC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Sep 2013 14:14:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42996190065; Tue, 3 Sep 2013 14:14:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 3 Sep 2013 14:14:22 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Subject: Re: PS Characterization Clarified
Thread-Topic: PS Characterization Clarified
Thread-Index: AQHOj2xNH03yvOSj8EOQYcB3kIv9w5mzJpKAgAH7c4CAAAmZAA==
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 21:14:21 +0000
Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630775272642@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
References: <B8F661D1-1C45-4A4B-9EFE-C7E32A7654E7@NLnetLabs.nl> <9B5010D3-EA47-49AD-B9D0-08148B7428FC@piuha.net> <CAC4RtVDXVqZkCi1stmuoxawUVDi6+uG-bXWp36CM6-bsqNjiew@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVDXVqZkCi1stmuoxawUVDi6+uG-bXWp36CM6-bsqNjiew@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <F10E2C995290AA4FA872E2BE48888B70@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: IETF list <ietf@ietf.org>, Scott O Bradner <sob@sobco.com>
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, 03 Sep 2013 21:14:31 -0000

On Sep 3, 2013, at 4:40 PM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
> The only concern I have is that once we do this -- declare that PS is
> always more mature than that -- we can't go back.  Do we *really* want
> to say that we will never again approve a PS spec that's partially
> baked? 

It seems as if we already do this.   It's not unusual to publish things as experimental when we don't think they're baked, and that seems entirely appropriate.

The fact is that anything that has PS on it at this point has had _very_ thorough review.   Frequently PS have multiple implementations.   I think that what you are describing is actually the status quo—it would be very hard to get something really half-baked published as PS at this juncture.   That doesn't mean that every PS is high quality, but neither are they half-baked.

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status