Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 29 January 2011 22:05 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 CEBF93A687F for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 14:05:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.47
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.47 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.129, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 8f9qu-521WQe for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 14:05:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yi0-f44.google.com (mail-yi0-f44.google.com [209.85.218.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C50BA3A680E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 14:05:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by yie19 with SMTP id 19so1735180yie.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 14:08:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent :mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=3iPLl4PXF+wUZWc72V0STwNybWd+VqIla9Eu+R447nI=; b=DOW+JjTOzC9NfQyFDWbXqzCXj2GXHm61l5ibgxMe0kzbnaqp0U0mul3a8d501BBU1R Xk0QQlKbc2KYp7x7TrmD7RYwlOhr9y8vYDvzpn4PJmiWs1nc4VrSOpHmuu62XUv9qwuj ZtWofdj3UZYOytDoVqkKj/9ZGSTan5YlnlPFc=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=PuvRUGvLYbNMhEYStUicdCVp0trs8Bb3V0Me5SY8KE4j443l1oorpjttf0YZlPFQgn oxYFIzDJceqn7HSyPzGVxGqYD8CI5DYgdXHdQ3f9WoFGCie/X5ZYS2BGbd460SWHsLXk mETUstGBcHRHkwHr1EPb6MNZPbtbDGP2gF5Ls=
Received: by 10.90.28.17 with SMTP id b17mr6853987agb.128.1296338925428; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 14:08:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.1.1.4] ([121.98.190.33]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w6sm3795928anf.26.2011.01.29.14.08.43 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 29 Jan 2011 14:08:44 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4D448FE7.60704@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 11:08:39 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Subject: Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels
References: <20110127032924.2FE4480CCE8@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu> <4D44741A.9070108@gmail.com> <4D447DF8.7040800@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <4D447DF8.7040800@dcrocker.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 22:05:36 -0000

On 2011-01-30 09:52, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/29/2011 12:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 2011-01-27 16:29, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
>>> 4/ as part of #3 - the rules should also specifically deal with
>>>     the following pp from 2026
>>>
>>>        The requirement for at least two independent and interoperable
>>>        implementations applies to all of the options and features of the
> ...
>> Actually the draft does not appear to require interoperability testing
>> at all:
>>
>>       "* There are a significant number of implementations with
>>          successful operational experience."
>>
>> Is that intentional? I thought interop was generally regarded as
> 
> 
> People are confusing testing with use. Those are two different kinds of
> "interoperability", with the latter being far more stringent.
> 
> The new draft specifies the latter.  And it quite intentionally does not
> specify the former.

Please point to the text that requires *any* kind of interoperability
being demonstrated by running code. "successful operational experience"
does not state or imply interoperation between independent implementations.

This is a big change in principle from 2026, which is not what is advertised
on the box as "primarily a reduction from three IETF standards track
maturity levels to two."

I want a two stage process, but I don't want to lose interoperability as
an explicit criterion. To me, that's always been the meaning of the
"running code" slogan.

     Brian

> 
> While "testing" is extremely important for when doing development, there
> is no reason that the IETF should be required to include that very
> intermediary activity within our standards process.
> 
> So the new proposal has two phases:
> 
>    1) Specification
> 
>    2) Use
> 
> That there are intermediate real-world phases, such as development,
> testing and deployment is essential, of course.  But there is nothing
> essential in having the IETF mark completion of any of those
> intermediate phases.
> 
> d/