Hi,
On 2010-10-26, at 6:37, James M. Polk wrote:
I'm not in love with the 3 maturity levels, especially when I was
asked by an AD during Maastricht to provide proof of 2 independent
implementations just to have an ID I was presenting be considered to
become a WG item.
I was that AD, and
On 2010-10-26, at 23:54, Tony Hain wrote:
Did you miss James Polk's comment yesterday? The IESG is already changing
their ways!! They now require 2 independent implementations for a personal
I-D to become a WG draft.
James characterization is inaccurate. See my other email.
Lars
smime.p7s
On 2010-10-27, at 2:10, John Leslie wrote:
I'm quite certain the IESG doesn't have such a blanket policy.
Correct (of course).
The reported incident _may_ be accurate, but such a requirement
would have come from the WG Chair, not the responsible AD, least of
all some other AD. I'd be
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 07:58:25AM -0700,
The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote
a message of 31 lines which said:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Multicast DNS'
draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns-12.txt as a Proposed
Stephane,
I won't speak to the complaints you raise below, other than to say that
as an IANA port reviewer, we need to have this problem sorted, and now.
Perhaps not every other request, but nearly every other request is for a
UDP port for discovery. I do believe that the work should be done
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 03:24:55PM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
The problem with the current, failed process is that there is absolutely no
correlation between the standards status of a protocol and adoption.
Why exactly is that a problem? That's not a rhetorical question. If
_that_ is
Avygdor - can you tell me more about the implementations on which the document
is based?
- Ralph
On Oct 27, 2010, at 2:50 AM 10/27/10, Avygdor Moise wrote:
Dear Mr. St. Johns,
Respectfully, I think that it is not the purpose of the RFC to state what it
is not.
The term all known
This comes back to the question or why have maturity levels at all. Ideally, an
implementer should prefer to implement a mature standard over a less-mature
one. In practice, adopting the more advanced standard may give you an obsolete
protocol, rather than a more stable one. IOW the
Tony Hain alh-i...@tndh.net wrote:
Lars,
As I understand it, the characterization was correct.
Try though I may, I can't stretch it to correct.
In fairness to James, though, it was _not_ false, just misleading.
(After all, it led me to a thoroughly inaccurate assumption: that the
Minor issues:
- Section 3, 2nd para, second sentence is:
A Type 4 S-PMSI Join may be used to assign a customer
IPv6 (C-S,C-G) flow to a P-tunnel that is created by
PIM/IPv4.
I'm curious how else might a Type 4 S-PMSI be used? This sentence
makes it seem unclear as to whether
Eric
At 01:44 PM 10/27/2010, Eric Rosen wrote:
Minor issues:
- Section 3, 2nd para, second sentence is:
A Type 4 S-PMSI Join may be used to assign a customer
IPv6 (C-S,C-G) flow to a P-tunnel that is created by
PIM/IPv4.
I'm curious how else might a Type 4 S-PMSI be used? This
Hello,
At 11:36 25-10-10, Russ Housley wrote:
Should I be seeking a sponsor for this draft?
I ask for your indulgence as I could not resist:
If you wish to seek Area Director sponsorship for an
individual submission, the best solution is to contact the
most relevant Area Director
John Leslie wrote:
Tony Hain alh-i...@tndh.net wrote:
Lars,
As I understand it, the characterization was correct.
Try though I may, I can't stretch it to correct.
In fairness to James, though, it was _not_ false, just misleading.
(After all, it led me to a thoroughly
We really should get serious about the term 'proposed', and note that the
referenced document is under development. It is not an end state in itself,
just aging on the shelf to meet a process check mark.
Tony
Tony,
That would not work, would it? The driving force behind most WG efforts
http://bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1291536
National rollout of invasive pat-downs this week
Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting
Chairman of the Board of Directors SIP Forum
PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683
mailto:richard(at)shockey.us
On Oct 27, 2010, at 10:56 PM, Bob Braden wrote:
In this environment, the only thing that seems to make sense is for WGs
to start usually at Experimental (someone else suggested this, I
apologize for not recalling who it was).
You might mean me. But having authored 2 experimental
Bob Braden wrote:
We really should get serious about the term 'proposed', and note that
the
referenced document is under development. It is not an end state in
itself,
just aging on the shelf to meet a process check mark.
Tony
Tony,
That would not work, would it? The driving
I beg to differ pretty much all Informational RFCs bear the following
notation:
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification;
This is clearly an example of an RFC stating what it is not.
For the rest:
all known is different than all implementations known of by the
Tony,
I note that there seems to be some correlation between the degradation
of the IETF process and
the disappearance of the Internet research community from the IETF (the
US government
decided that no further RD funding was required, since the Internet was
done.)
Bob Braden
It would
On Oct 27, 2010, at 5:18 PM, Richard Shockey wrote:
http://bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1291536
National rollout of invasive pat-downs this week
Yes, as it happens I was talking to a TSA person socially today and they
brought this up.
They have all
On 10/27/10 10:35 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 10/27/2010 8:53 AM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
three level is one level too many. Simplifying things and
eliminating process clutter is helpful in and of itself.
By my reading of the proposal, this means that any spec with a couple of
That depends on where the proposal is in the stack.
Cruft in the lower layers is decidedly bad. Cruft in the application layers
is inevitable and is best left to the market to sort out.
At this point with HTTP not recognized as an Internet Standard, I don't
think we need to worry too much about
At 2:58 PM +0200 10/27/10, Yoav Nir wrote:
So in answering you second question, I don't see any reason why things won't
keep sticking in PS or even Experimental forever.
Here's a reason, and possibly the strongest one: author pride. If I wrote a
protocol that I was proud of and I had a
+1
On Oct 26, 2010, at 3:04 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Oct 26, 2010, at 10:19 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Action
We should adopt Russ's proposal: Axe the DRAFT status and automatically
promote all DRAFT status documents to STANDARD status. This can be done
formally by changing
Look at RAI: I would be grateful if some proposals had running code that ran
once.
On Oct 27, 2010, at 7:16 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
As I understand it, running code means that the technology has been
deployed across the full breadth of the Internet, in services large and
small, by
Actually, my heartache with Russ' proposal is the automatic If it's Draft,
it's now Standard.
I would be quite happy with Proposed and Internet Standard, with NO
grandfathering.
On Oct 26, 2010, at 5:57 PM, Ofer Inbar wrote:
On Oct 26, 2010, at 2:39 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
I'm a fan of
Time for another contrarion position...
Tony, why do you say the most pressing problem is getting past the IESG, and
what evidence do you have that we are going to be attacking I-Ds.
- Ralph
On Oct 26, 2010, at 4:54 PM 10/26/10, Tony Hain wrote:
[...]As many others have said, the most
I'll take the contrarian position.
Demonstrate to me that the barriers for PS really are higher than they used to
be.
- Ralph
On Oct 26, 2010, at 10:39 AM 10/26/10, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 26.10.2010 16:31, Dave CROCKER wrote:
...
This seems to be the core idea driving support for this
On Oct 27, 2010, at 8:58 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
This comes back to the question or why have maturity levels at all. Ideally,
an implementer should prefer to implement a mature standard over a
less-mature one. In practice, adopting the more advanced standard may give
you an obsolete protocol,
On 10/27/2010 8:53 AM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
three level is one level too many. Simplifying things and
eliminating process clutter is helpful in and of itself.
By my reading of the proposal, this means that any spec with a couple of
interoperable implementations can become a
I think the problems are rather more complex.
From what I hear, protocol design work is not highly rated by tenure
committees, nor is authorship of RFCs. The type of papers that count for
tenure are the ones that nobody in the field reads.
A lot of the problems we face are not the type of
31 matches
Mail list logo
