Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Standardization

"Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@wonderhamster.org> Thu, 11 November 2010 08:44 UTC

Return-Path: <spencer@wonderhamster.org>
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 6B0FD3A6A24 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 00:44:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.266
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.266 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.332, BAYES_00=-2.599, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001, 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 pFSV9U2UytlC for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 00:44:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.195]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F13703A69DB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 00:44:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from S73602b (dhcp-771c.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.119.28]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus3) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MOO2H-1PCu0E0Lqf-005jgh; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 03:44:33 -0500
Message-ID: <2BB7C49F68BA442786EC591F09735823@china.huawei.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins <spencer@wonderhamster.org>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, dcrocker@bbiw.net
References: <4CD967AD.80605@dcrocker.net><3486.198.180.150.230.1289445298.squirrel@mail.smetech.net><4CDB7026.5090903@dcrocker.net> <4CDB918C.8090902@dcrocker.net> <1366.198.180.150.230.1289463839.squirrel@mail.smetech.net>
Subject: Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Standardization
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 02:44:08 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994
X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:zrFgcLDBmaJuHVro8qTpbG72OCWuOrcglcoENu0zvX3 4lFscIw4z1c+QQ0PLks7cJybicx3gPtSTEtcDfaCkc069F4KvM DDgKtGJBX7Z3tDO2MzA7buQJRJW/wSq78LT1wOLjK3/M/2MTip aXA67o2nbq/JNukW/6ORUmrsKmJQtzCZYPQcXasxZ8wUDxngs5 7ysSzHPpRi9FItjhKmF/EdSTU9tDrJb5HEmGQysKf0=
Cc: IETF Discussion <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: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 08:44:27 -0000

Russ,

> Dave:
>
> This is a significant improvement from my perspective.  We need a
> mechanism to implement it.  The mechanism does not need to be heavy
> weight, and it might be as simple as some statements in a Last Call,
> allowing the community to support or challenge them.
>
> Russ

Thank you for the hallway conversation on this.

When I counted last week, only 80 implementation reports have been filed 
with the IESG in the history of "ever", so this doesn't seem like the right 
hurdle for advancement.

I think your suggestion to make assertions at Last Call time and asking for 
supporting/challenging statements sounds very reasonable. The IESG can do 
the right thing based on Last Call comments.

Thanks,

Spencer