Re: PS Characterization Clarified

Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com> Wed, 04 September 2013 16:14 UTC

Return-Path: <scott.brim@gmail.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 69A8A21E80E1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 09:14:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.354
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.354 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.247, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, 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 TGOMzs6cV2KG for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 09:14:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa0-x22e.google.com (mail-oa0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C026321E80C9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 09:14:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id o20so685818oag.33 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Sep 2013 09:14:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=u0fefPUJRecQ+/YSRbEx/ADgXUJFN6Zo5iPRKZdM6O0=; b=aARCICF777cIZ5KOzoBVYC3wmVmNM6o6RnijNeXGKqFN7uWOtngi1tT+tMIExgcx/L 7QgIxgHgszL30zPlg6BPz4LuTTXbOt4c9Ee3ZicLNC9fcJLa/MePOtOjAv/aHWJWeGXC FErkHQ4Pok3OjZz4cCm8faHrhuPGNn8AhCiYejYEbT2+MnHObZgeGzGBxu5Wolm7SbTl yyShyNdV2szAsgjeRCyX50StI2Sie57blRZqTjTQdNlIcAcSIEDOn9YHvqTBMir2/oHl lAfuETDmHFDilyu1BzJA8GidhP5/Pp1RZ9MOx9LH9wUIyjppCWVIw2CCTw+wWMYT/EEL WLoA==
X-Received: by 10.60.93.105 with SMTP id ct9mr2759035oeb.42.1378311281232; Wed, 04 Sep 2013 09:14:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.44.105 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 09:14:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVDj3tBChrJBiBiD6uwOtGRJHLDYeh62XbERrHp0i1Fmfg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <B8F661D1-1C45-4A4B-9EFE-C7E32A7654E7@NLnetLabs.nl> <9B5010D3-EA47-49AD-B9D0-08148B7428FC@piuha.net> <CAC4RtVDXVqZkCi1stmuoxawUVDi6+uG-bXWp36CM6-bsqNjiew@mail.gmail.com> <EC75AB54-8B11-42B9-8049-F70D09DB1775@NLnetLabs.nl> <CAC4RtVDj3tBChrJBiBiD6uwOtGRJHLDYeh62XbERrHp0i1Fmfg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 12:14:21 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPv4CP-DXq0=FX9nFDCo0HXvWKNRTJ+8ay=m7J=JyRxJciN-vw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: PS Characterization Clarified
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
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: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 16:14:42 -0000

On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 10:34 AM, 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?  This is painting us into the room where PS is mature and
>>> robust.  If we like being in that room, that's fine.  But it removes
>>> the "IESG can put fuzzy stuff out as PS if it thinks that's the right
>>> thing to do" option.
>>
>> Wouldn't such spec come with an applicability statement of sorts? (today, in practice?)
>
> That's a good point; probably yes.
>
> So if the text here can say something that allows a PS spec to *say*
> that it's less mature, and that that's being done on purpose, my
> concern is satisfied.

Not the spec itself but an associated statement about it?

> As a specific current example, I have the sense that the documents
> coming out of the repute working group are specifying a protocol
> that's somewhat less mature than what we usually do -- more comparable
> to the 2026 version of PS than to this one.  Yet I absolutely think
> they should be PS, *not* Experimental.

OK, somebody has to say it.  Maybe we should have another state,
something like draft standard.