Re: Is the invariants draft really standards track?

Jana Iyengar <jri.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 27 May 2020 06:24 UTC

Return-Path: <jri.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A43F23A03F3 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 May 2020 23:24:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0_9gvBOf64jZ for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 May 2020 23:24:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22d.google.com (mail-lj1-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC9A13A064C for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 May 2020 23:23:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22d.google.com with SMTP id z13so17791643ljn.7 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 May 2020 23:23:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=88+Apf/aXzPkNiFrTWPfV9cJ5DHa9gE6eiM4w9T9TGI=; b=DaXkreb6yvHVbkTILmgcxvCalZ+IhhON28bYBrczC63dT+Yv7wsg5obfopbovp06X0 FqZMvexyStk6Lls/JdJ3gVJxBx+1d77dn/56+JjUo3NL5mpwMiEQ1o1PCWuk0WXr328B DkZe06Ot3YDa630mPszF6uKob51pPkrCdgomogwmbWisit6iSVzrVXzzTykMrzWPrl3a 1j5SyQiFCmKCdyfGjqETwmSJQZekF60fJBAuMrku07DH1MVmWIi4r7K9X7uv2A5H9lWT yJFJj8uYDPJWWDLcTuIpBCKMJHX7J3q5sYRAyyykmzawMrSFbR7CCav0H+tGFozsre4R LxmQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=88+Apf/aXzPkNiFrTWPfV9cJ5DHa9gE6eiM4w9T9TGI=; b=sL/6QD2dKuAzYO2Ri2wEQAFnY3FF38BrliuA8P7C0cd7mepSsGEk1lkfggFP/HmKsB qkdgUQybO/NvzcH6lFptr6P1zcjVFalQf6qf0/rpF+yMQTx1ThFp4VMAA3dWi/t7ahgP VTQZi1uYgHcTBULBj9xliiSXbDvB7y61lDm/6KxvoI/hM5Z23BNKHGtYSwYcmZ5hCiUV K/2RrY+O7inbd7w+nDBHt6ZW2SFB79j+HAOr6vAio4fAF6Hr3eKhS7vF0X/tJaLpdlKb h0c4LquzukBunjgd+Bs2MKMLDzt3eMF/d7q4+ZALGwWmY4RYuyjmiCL0pcIvRPzQ0VQu QjWw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532CE1F+jUV8R12auBXS2ZV3TOUCVqydohfUY8Qf7jXXYxNjZdQV UdMFvT9JV1ah/c6WcSJub9xqmmnWH1Ya93J2lYPwqA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxuLQN1VqvlytdhY2V8vyXafmoDnweHBDJWsf0ZzERtiKBjnwvPr3+P5/Y4tJOrlMcucVq4PTT3aIS2lnYFn2g=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9f17:: with SMTP id u23mr2070404ljk.400.1590560637119; Tue, 26 May 2020 23:23:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAM4esxQBqfrz24riPQA_VGKcGp_TzW0pqb97KfFMtNdW9pUfDg@mail.gmail.com> <f72e6e77-89d5-4d88-8d25-ef77a5a1109d@www.fastmail.com> <05FE8926-E3F5-41FB-876E-0AB0686BC80C@fb.com> <CAKcm_gNsiTuQFqiRv7hYnEoSnoDdim2iZeiMA_J_aX0rVMkJMw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKcm_gNsiTuQFqiRv7hYnEoSnoDdim2iZeiMA_J_aX0rVMkJMw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jana Iyengar <jri.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 23:23:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CACpbDce3c_E6B_Q940r-k3jZpPvPDWhPBmMTRtyOkbyiGkef=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Is the invariants draft really standards track?
To: Ian Swett <ianswett=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Roberto Peon <fenix=40fb.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "quic@ietf.org" <quic@ietf.org>, Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c4ef9f05a69b410b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/qZSvTvt8osM0Hkg6b0V5ohxhP6Q>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 06:24:02 -0000

Which Martin are you both agreeing with?

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 5:10 PM Ian Swett <ianswett=
40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> I also agree with Martin.
>
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 8:08 PM Roberto Peon <fenix=
> 40fb.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>> What Martin said, I say too!
>> -=R
>>
>> On 5/26/20, 4:18 PM, "QUIC on behalf of Martin Thomson" <
>> quic-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of mt@lowentropy.net> wrote:
>>
>>     On Wed, May 27, 2020, at 03:55, Martin Duke wrote:
>>     > The only RFC 2119 keywords in this document
>>
>>     Just because we don't use MUST (much), it doesn't make the language
>> any less normative.
>>
>>     > What do others think?
>>
>>     I think that this has to be standards track.  It's making a
>> commitment.  If we need more MUSTs, then feel free to propose it.
>>
>>
>>