Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com Wed, 27 October 2010 16:07 UTC

Return-Path: <ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.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 44AAC3A6991 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 09:07:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.957
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.957 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.642, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 5WPyijd8Kp9I for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 09:07:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 223CE3A6935 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 09:07:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01NTJJRCYD1C008UH1@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 09:09:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01NTHAF6UL6O000CVY@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 09:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com
Message-id: <01NTJJR8423E000CVY@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 08:53:57 -0700
Subject: Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Tue, 26 Oct 2010 08:46:22 -0400" <4B803580-664C-42B3-92A7-712452F12BA3@gmail.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN
References: <4B803580-664C-42B3-92A7-712452F12BA3@gmail.com>
To: RJ Atkinson <rja.lists@gmail.com>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1288193498; i=@mrochek.com; bh=6nfA8X+WTJ6CVBP3mOWjvSvfs0WskhucRcSZb0vm6T4=; h=From:Cc:Message-id:Date:Subject:In-reply-to:MIME-version: Content-type:References:To; b=i4E5vwHinGyN2mxVJ5ac0w6+KZHaoXNWa/fMMIQWBb6Sa44/jUdaHla5XKs/08Vxs X3cp4y7WnNj+6h0gfDTsOmzfvcpJMycd+2wwnv7lGKCv7vZgeBfOMJrC2M/4JwWYv/ X/nfaCwMfVm8btypH99yXbL+pgXNcNLbFUoPsYkE=
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: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 16:07:51 -0000

> I support advancing this document to BCP and making
> these process changes.    The changes will simplify
> advancement of standards-track documents and be a
> good step in the right direction.

Exactly. While I don't see how this document will fix several the high bar at
PS or the lack of advancement incentives, failure to fix those things doesn't
change the fact three level is one level too many. Simplifying things and
eliminating process clutter is helpful in and of itself.

I also believe that some of this process clutter acts as a sort of attractive
nuisance, allowing us to spend time turning the various knobs and pressing
the assorted buttons created by the clutter instead of having to address
issues directly.