On 05 May 2011, at 12:13 , The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels'
draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-06.txt as a BCP
The IESG plans to make a decision in the
On Thu May 5 18:31:33 2011, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 5/5/2011 10:22 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
On balance, whilst I appreciate the aims of this document, I think
the proposals
are not suitable for adoption.
1) This document radically lowers the quality of Proposed
Standards.
What,
On Thu May 5 23:47:50 2011, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Folks,
On 5/5/2011 11:33 AM, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
As I have stated before, I do not think that this proposal will
achieve
anything useful since it will not change anything related to the
underlying causes of few Proposed Standards advancing
I oppose publication of this as an RFC.
It is about politics, not about technical matters, and politics is the art of
the possible. Even if this
proposal succeeds in persuading (most of) the IETF to rethink the meaning of
'Proposed Standard',
its impact on the rest of the world will be nil. The
Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote:
To quote from draft-bradner-ietf-stds-trk-00 (paraphrasing newtrk).
4/ there seems to be a reinforcing feedback loop involved: vendors
implement and deploy PS documents so the IESG tries to make the
PS documents better
This is the
Jari, and others,
I support this draft with the caveat that we can establish a set of
significant metrics that provide us an understanding as to the impact of
the change.
Eliot
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
On Fri May 6 11:44:48 2011, John Leslie wrote:
Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote:
To quote from draft-bradner-ietf-stds-trk-00 (paraphrasing
newtrk).
4/ there seems to be a reinforcing feedback loop involved:
vendors
implement and deploy PS documents so the IESG tries to
As the sponsoring AD for Russ' draft, I'm very interested in hearing
what everyone thinks about this. Please keep those comments coming! The
last call was started as it was felt that discussion may have converged
enough so that we could perhaps move forward with this proposal, or at
least
Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote:
On Fri May 6 11:44:48 2011, John Leslie wrote:
If we want to change this, we need to start putting
warning-labels in the _individual_ RFCs that don't meet
a ready for widespread deployment criterion.
I do not believe this will work, actually.
On 5/6/2011 1:31 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Thu May 5 18:31:33 2011, Dave CROCKER wrote:
1) This document radically lowers the quality of Proposed Standards.
What, specifically, are the parts of the proposal that you believe will lower
the quality of a Proposed Standard?
The parts
On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 08:08:54AM -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote:
The parts unmentioned in the document, in effect.
^^^
You appear to be saying that the new document lowers quality by
continuing to use the same basic criteria and qualifiers for
Proposed that we've used for
Dave: the issue is that PS was previously not seen as a finished product,
now it has much more exalted status, but the criteria have not changed.
On May 6, 2011 11:09 AM, Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 5/6/2011 1:31 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Thu May 5 18:31:33 2011, Dave CROCKER
I am strongly opposed to this 2 document maturity level proposal.
The real problem tha the IETF is regularly facing are constituencies that
will fight hard against specifications getting updated, improved or fixed,
once they have been published as RFC.
Dave Cridland wrote:
Dave CROCKER
On 5/6/2011 9:15 AM, Martin Rex wrote:
The real problem tha the IETF is regularly facing are constituencies that
will fight hard against specifications getting updated, improved or fixed,
once they have been published as RFC.
That seems particularly true about possible changes to RFC 2026.
On 5/6/2011 9:01 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
I think he is saying that there is are _de facto_ criteria that are
neither called out in 2026 nor in this draft, and that those criteria
are the running code, so the documentation ought to be made to match.
Oh. But then that doesn't mean that
On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 09:27:16AM -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 5/6/2011 9:01 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
I think he is saying that there is are _de facto_ criteria that are
neither called out in 2026 nor in this draft, and that those criteria
are the running code, so the documentation
--On Friday, May 06, 2011 18:15 +0200 Martin Rex m...@sap.com
wrote:
The real problem tha the IETF is regularly facing are
constituencies that will fight hard against specifications
getting updated, improved or fixed, once they have been
published as RFC.
Martin,
That is an interesting
On Fri May 6 17:50:07 2011, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 09:27:16AM -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 5/6/2011 9:01 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
I think he is saying that there is are _de facto_ criteria that
are
neither called out in 2026 nor in this draft, and that those
Martin,
I think you may actually be arguing for a 1 step process.
Eliot
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I think he is saying that there is are _de facto_ criteria that are
neither called out in 2026 nor in this draft, and that those criteria
are the running code, so the documentation ought to be made to match.
This suggests that perhaps we should rename Proposed Standard to
Not a Standard But Might
The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) plans to issue a
Request for Proposal (RFP) in late May for a vendor to perform the
Secretariat functions when the current contract ends on 31 January 2012.
To that end the IAOC invites community comments on the draft Statement of
Work (SOW) that
Hi Joe – Thank you for your thorough review and detailed response. Your
feedback will be incorporated into a –04 update with other changes received in
last call and from the IESG. (I'm still working through all of the changes
though.)
In any case, see my detailed responses inline below. I
This suggests that perhaps we should rename Proposed Standard to
Not a Standard But Might Be One Later, promote the PS published
under the overstrict rules to DS, and we're done.
I'm not sure whether I'm serious or not.
Whether you are or not.., the only way to do this is to stop calling
This suggests that perhaps we should rename Proposed Standard to
Not a Standard But Might Be One Later, promote the PS published
under the overstrict rules to DS, and we're done.
I'm not sure whether I'm serious or not.
Whether you are or not.., the only way to do this is to stop calling
them
On Fri May 6 22:12:35 2011, Barry Leiba wrote:
This suggests that perhaps we should rename Proposed Standard to
Not a Standard But Might Be One Later, promote the PS published
under the overstrict rules to DS, and we're done.
I'm not sure whether I'm serious or not.
Whether you are or
John said...
Well, you know, the Not a Standard But Might Be One Later really are
requesting comments.
Yes, well, we all know that RFC has lost any real sense of its
expansion long ago. It certainly has done so in the eyes of most of
the world, for whom RFC means Internet standard.
Dave
On 5/6/2011 2:29 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
Whether you are or not.., the only way to do this is to stop calling
them RFCs. Maybe we should have a PROP series for PS docs, and
only give them RFC numbers later, when they progress.
Well, you know, the Not a Standard But Might Be One Later
On Fri May 6 22:37:20 2011, Barry Leiba wrote:
John said...
Well, you know, the Not a Standard But Might Be One Later
really are
requesting comments.
Yes, well, we all know that RFC has lost any real sense of its
expansion long ago. It certainly has done so in the eyes of most of
the
Barry Leiba wrote:
John said...
Well, you know, the Not a Standard But Might Be One Later really are
requesting comments.
Yes, well, we all know that RFC has lost any real sense of its
expansion long ago. It certainly has done so in the eyes of most of
the world, for whom RFC means
Ship it. We are way past the point of diminishing returns in
polishing this.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
07.05.2011 0:29, John R. Levine wrote:
This suggests that perhaps we should rename Proposed Standard to
Not a Standard But Might Be One Later, promote the PS published
under the overstrict rules to DS, and we're done.
I'm not sure whether I'm serious or not.
Whether you are or not.., the only
Hello again,
Now as for the document itself. I really appreciate its purpose;
encouraging Proposed-Standards-writers to advance their document
replacing 3-tier system to 2-tier one is a good idea. However, in fact,
this proposal in its current view really can't work effectively because of:
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'A Survey of Lower-than-Best-Effort Transport Protocols'
(draft-ietf-ledbat-survey-07.txt) as an Informational RFC
This document is the product of the Low Extra Delay Background Transport
Working Group.
The IESG contact person is Wesley Eddy.
A
The IESG has received a request from the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to
Edge WG (pwe3) to consider the following document:
- 'Flow Aware Transport of Pseudowires over an MPLS Packet Switched
Network'
draft-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw-06.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the
The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) plans to issue a
Request for Proposal (RFP) in late May for a vendor to perform the
Secretariat functions when the current contract ends on 31 January 2012.
To that end the IAOC invites community comments on the draft Statement of
Work (SOW) that
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6190
Title: RTP Payload Format for Scalable
Video Coding
Author: S. Wenger, Y.-K. Wang,
T. Schierl, A. Eleftheriadis
Status:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6226
Title: PIM Group-to-Rendezvous-Point Mapping
Author: B. Joshi, A. Kessler,
D. McWalter
Status: Standards Track
Stream: IETF
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6227
Title: Design Goals for Scalable Internet
Routing
Author: T. Li, Ed.
Status: Informational
Stream: IRTF
Date: May
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6228
Title: Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Response
Code for Indication of Terminated Dialog
Author: C. Holmberg
Status: Standards Track
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6234
Title: US Secure Hash Algorithms (SHA
and SHA-based HMAC and HKDF)
Author: D. Eastlake 3rd, T. Hansen
Status: Informational
Stream:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6237
Title: IMAP4 Multimailbox SEARCH Extension
Author: B. Leiba, A. Melnikov
Status: Experimental
Stream: IETF
Date: May 2011
41 matches
Mail list logo
