Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-05
19.04.2011 1:21, Russ Housley wrote: Mykyta: 4. Downward References Permitted This section says nothing about references to documents with no status (pre-IETF RFCs). Maybe informative references to such RFCs should be allowed. And what about normative ones? Whether the RFC 3967 procedure will be used in such cases, or such references are disallowed in Standards Track docs? I think this should also be mentioned in your draft. What does this have to do with moving from two maturity levels? Mostly nothing, but if you consider that the whole Section 4 is appropriate for your document, what I propose is appropriate also. Mykyta Russ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-05
Mykyta: 4. Downward References Permitted This section says nothing about references to documents with no status (pre-IETF RFCs). Maybe informative references to such RFCs should be allowed. And what about normative ones? Whether the RFC 3967 procedure will be used in such cases, or such references are disallowed in Standards Track docs? I think this should also be mentioned in your draft. What does this have to do with moving from two maturity levels? Mostly nothing, but if you consider that the whole Section 4 is appropriate for your document, what I propose is appropriate also. I just reviewed RFC 3967. It does not seem to claim that references to those older documents requires special handling. I'd like to leave this topic to an update to RFC 3967 if such an update is needed at all. Russ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-05
On 4/19/11 9:57 AM, Russ Housley wrote: Mykyta: 4. Downward References Permitted This section says nothing about references to documents with no status (pre-IETF RFCs). Maybe informative references to such RFCs should be allowed. And what about normative ones? Whether the RFC 3967 procedure will be used in such cases, or such references are disallowed in Standards Track docs? I think this should also be mentioned in your draft. What does this have to do with moving from two maturity levels? Mostly nothing, but if you consider that the whole Section 4 is appropriate for your document, what I propose is appropriate also. I just reviewed RFC 3967. It does not seem to claim that references to those older documents requires special handling. I'd like to leave this topic to an update to RFC 3967 if such an update is needed at all. +1. Let's keep this I-D short and focused. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-05
06.04.2011 18:27, Russ Housley wrote:
This revision proposes a solution to the issue raised by Brian Carpenter about
documents lingering at Draft Standard. Some people thought it was a problem.
Others thought it did not matter. The proposed solution leaves the matter in
the hands of the IESG.
Russ,
Hello again. I have another minor comment regarding this document.
4. Downward References Permitted
This section says nothing about references to documents with no status
(pre-IETF RFCs). Maybe informative references to such RFCs should be
allowed. And what about normative ones? Whether the RFC 3967 procedure
will be used in such cases, or such references are disallowed in
Standards Track docs? I think this should also be mentioned in your draft.
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Russ
Begin forwarded message:
From: IETF I-D Submission Toolidsubmiss...@ietf.org
Date: April 6, 2011 11:22:25 AM EDT
To: hous...@vigilsec.com
Cc: dcroc...@bbiw.net, ebur...@standardstrack.com
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-05
A new version of I-D, draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-05.txt has been
successfully submitted by Russ Housley and posted to the IETF repository.
Filename:draft-housley-two-maturity-levels
Revision:05
Title: Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels
Creation_date: 2011-04-06
WG ID: Independent Submission
Number_of_pages: 7
Abstract:
This document proposes several changes to the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF) Standards Process defined in RFC 2026, primarily a
reduction from three IETF standards track maturity levels to two.
{{ RFC Editor: please change proposes several changes to the to
changes the. }}
The IETF Secretariat.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-05
2011/4/7, Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com:
Mykyta:
If this approach is acceptable to the community, implementation reports will
no longer be needed at all.
In this case your document should obsolete RFC 5657 and mention this.
Mykyta
Russ
On Apr 7, 2011, at 10:09 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
06.04.2011 18:27, Russ Housley wrote:
This revision proposes a solution to the issue raised by Brian Carpenter
about documents lingering at Draft Standard. Some people thought it was
a problem. Others thought it did not matter. The proposed solution
leaves the matter in the hands of the IESG.
I can hardly see my comments from 18 March
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg65911.html)
considered in -05. Are you planning to make any changes regarding this in
-06?
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Russ
Begin forwarded message:
From: IETF I-D Submission Toolidsubmiss...@ietf.org
Date: April 6, 2011 11:22:25 AM EDT
To: hous...@vigilsec.com
Cc: dcroc...@bbiw.net, ebur...@standardstrack.com
Subject: New Version Notification for
draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-05
A new version of I-D, draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-05.txt has been
successfully submitted by Russ Housley and posted to the IETF
repository.
Filename: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels
Revision: 05
Title: Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels
Creation_date: 2011-04-06
WG ID: Independent Submission
Number_of_pages: 7
Abstract:
This document proposes several changes to the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF) Standards Process defined in RFC 2026, primarily a
reduction from three IETF standards track maturity levels to two.
{{ RFC Editor: please change proposes several changes to the to
changes the. }}
The IETF Secretariat.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-05
06.04.2011 18:27, Russ Housley wrote:
This revision proposes a solution to the issue raised by Brian Carpenter about
documents lingering at Draft Standard. Some people thought it was a problem.
Others thought it did not matter. The proposed solution leaves the matter in
the hands of the IESG.
I can hardly see my comments from 18 March
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg65911.html)
considered in -05. Are you planning to make any changes regarding this
in -06?
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Russ
Begin forwarded message:
From: IETF I-D Submission Toolidsubmiss...@ietf.org
Date: April 6, 2011 11:22:25 AM EDT
To: hous...@vigilsec.com
Cc: dcroc...@bbiw.net, ebur...@standardstrack.com
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-05
A new version of I-D, draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-05.txt has been
successfully submitted by Russ Housley and posted to the IETF repository.
Filename:draft-housley-two-maturity-levels
Revision:05
Title: Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels
Creation_date: 2011-04-06
WG ID: Independent Submission
Number_of_pages: 7
Abstract:
This document proposes several changes to the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF) Standards Process defined in RFC 2026, primarily a
reduction from three IETF standards track maturity levels to two.
{{ RFC Editor: please change proposes several changes to the to
changes the. }}
The IETF Secretariat.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-05
Mykyta:
If this approach is acceptable to the community, implementation reports will no
longer be needed at all.
Russ
On Apr 7, 2011, at 10:09 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
06.04.2011 18:27, Russ Housley wrote:
This revision proposes a solution to the issue raised by Brian Carpenter
about documents lingering at Draft Standard. Some people thought it was a
problem. Others thought it did not matter. The proposed solution leaves
the matter in the hands of the IESG.
I can hardly see my comments from 18 March
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg65911.html) considered
in -05. Are you planning to make any changes regarding this in -06?
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Russ
Begin forwarded message:
From: IETF I-D Submission Toolidsubmiss...@ietf.org
Date: April 6, 2011 11:22:25 AM EDT
To: hous...@vigilsec.com
Cc: dcroc...@bbiw.net, ebur...@standardstrack.com
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-05
A new version of I-D, draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-05.txt has been
successfully submitted by Russ Housley and posted to the IETF repository.
Filename:draft-housley-two-maturity-levels
Revision:05
Title: Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels
Creation_date: 2011-04-06
WG ID: Independent Submission
Number_of_pages: 7
Abstract:
This document proposes several changes to the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF) Standards Process defined in RFC 2026, primarily a
reduction from three IETF standards track maturity levels to two.
{{ RFC Editor: please change proposes several changes to the to
changes the. }}
The IETF Secretariat.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-05
This revision proposes a solution to the issue raised by Brian Carpenter about
documents lingering at Draft Standard. Some people thought it was a problem.
Others thought it did not matter. The proposed solution leaves the matter in
the hands of the IESG.
Russ
Begin forwarded message:
From: IETF I-D Submission Tool idsubmiss...@ietf.org
Date: April 6, 2011 11:22:25 AM EDT
To: hous...@vigilsec.com
Cc: dcroc...@bbiw.net, ebur...@standardstrack.com
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-05
A new version of I-D, draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-05.txt has been
successfully submitted by Russ Housley and posted to the IETF repository.
Filename: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels
Revision: 05
Title: Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels
Creation_date: 2011-04-06
WG ID: Independent Submission
Number_of_pages: 7
Abstract:
This document proposes several changes to the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF) Standards Process defined in RFC 2026, primarily a
reduction from three IETF standards track maturity levels to two.
{{ RFC Editor: please change proposes several changes to the to
changes the. }}
The IETF Secretariat.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-05
The last *several* revisions have been perfectly fine. The most recent edits are also fine. We're micro-editing this document at this point, meaning that perfect is impeding our ability to deploy more than good enough to replace 3-tier system that most IETF folks agree is broken, and has been broken for at least a decade. A tiny few people might like to edit this document more, but the IETF supposedly operates upon rough consensus, rather than either smooth consensus or unanimity. Could we please Last Call, approve, and ship this right now ? Yours, Ran Atkinson ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-05
On 06.04.2011 17:27, Russ Housley wrote: This revision proposes a solution to the issue raised by Brian Carpenter about documents lingering at Draft Standard. Some people thought it was a problem. Others thought it did not matter. The proposed solution leaves the matter in the hands of the IESG. Russ ... A question...: A specification shall remain at the Proposed Standard maturity level for at least six (6) months before consideration for advancement to the Internet Standard maturity level. It would probably good to clarify when the six month period starts (IESG approval? RFC publication?). Best regards, Julian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-05
On 4/6/11 10:45 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: On 06.04.2011 17:27, Russ Housley wrote: This revision proposes a solution to the issue raised by Brian Carpenter about documents lingering at Draft Standard. Some people thought it was a problem. Others thought it did not matter. The proposed solution leaves the matter in the hands of the IESG. Russ ... A question...: A specification shall remain at the Proposed Standard maturity level for at least six (6) months before consideration for advancement to the Internet Standard maturity level. It would probably good to clarify when the six month period starts (IESG approval? RFC publication?). RFC publication seems sensible -- sometimes it can take more than six months between IESG approval and RFC publication! (Slow authors during AUTH48, dependencies on yet-to-be-published specs, etc.) Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-05
Julian: A question...: A specification shall remain at the Proposed Standard maturity level for at least six (6) months before consideration for advancement to the Internet Standard maturity level. It would probably good to clarify when the six month period starts (IESG approval? RFC publication?). This is not a new question. It comes up every few years, and it was a big topic a few yers back when there was a long delay between approval and RFC publication. The 6 months starts with RFC publication. Russ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-05
Russ == Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com writes: Russ The 6 months starts with RFC publication. Please say that in the draft then. I had a different take away from the last version of this discussion I participated in. I don't care much what the answer is, but it seems clear that it requires documentation. Apologies if it is already stated elsewhere in the draft: I have not read 05 yet. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-05
Sam and Julian: Russ == Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com writes: Russ The 6 months starts with RFC publication. Please say that in the draft then. I had a different take away from the last version of this discussion I participated in. I don't care much what the answer is, but it seems clear that it requires documentation. Apologies if it is already stated elsewhere in the draft: I have not read 05 yet. I will add a sentence in -06 to make this clear. Russ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-05
On 2011-04-07 03:27, Russ Housley wrote: This revision proposes a solution to the issue raised by Brian Carpenter about documents lingering at Draft Standard. Some people thought it was a problem. Others thought it did not matter. The proposed solution leaves the matter in the hands of the IESG. That seems like a fine approach; it allows common sense to be applied. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
