On 2011-06-11 06:36, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
...
whereas you propose making I-Ds almost Standards Track. As it was
discussed before, there is an evidence of leaving PSs without any
action/progress; introducing Stable Snapshots there might occur
Stable Snapshots left without any action, like
11.06.2011 10:59, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2011-06-11 06:36, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
...
whereas you propose making I-Ds almost Standards Track. As it was
discussed before, there is an evidence of leaving PSs without any
action/progress; introducing Stable Snapshots there might occur
Stable
08.06.2011 10:58, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Wed Jun 8 05:57:15 2011, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 6/7/11 11:00 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
And, more to the point I think, to greatly decrease the quality of RFCs
published. Perhaps that's OK, but we need pretty strong consensus that
it's the right
On Wed Jun 8 05:57:15 2011, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 6/7/11 11:00 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
And, more to the point I think, to greatly decrease the quality of
RFCs
published. Perhaps that's OK, but we need pretty strong consensus
that
it's the right thing to do, and I haven't seen that
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 next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-06
On 6/7/11 11:00 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Pete, thanks for your helpful summary. Comments inline, now that I've
had a chance to review all of the Last Call feedback.
A conversation I'm happy to have. Comments inline. We are still men
without hats.
On 5/30/11 5:20 PM, Pete Resnick
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 11:57:15PM -0500, Pete Resnick wrote:
So you think that this is *not* a motivation for the changes and is
*not* something we need to change? Interesting.
For what it's worth, quite apart from thinking that the draft in
question will do nothing to change the state of
Pete Resnick wrote:
[...]
Section 2.2
(a) Specifically, merge Draft Standard into Internet Standard
(b) Combine criteria from Draft Standard and Standard
(i) Significant number of implementations with successful
operational experience
(ii) No unresolved errata causing interoperational
really never knows).
In addition, draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-06 does not
discuss any mechanism for getting from the current
as-practiced requirements for Proposed Standard back to the
requirements of RFC 2026, a schedule for doing so, nor
whether
On 5/30/11 7:39 PM, SM wrote:
At 16:20 30-05-2011, Pete Resnick wrote:
So, here is my a proposed alternative:
1. Make the changes in (A). We still need to say how to make that
happen, and how to deal with the increased number of RFCs.
The annual review provides an alternative to deal with
--On Thursday, May 05, 2011 09:13 -0700 The IESG
iesg-secret...@ietf.org 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
--On Tuesday, May 31, 2011 08:27 -0500 Pete Resnick
presn...@qualcomm.com wrote:
1. Make the changes in (A). We still need to say how to make
that happen, and how to deal with the increased number of
RFCs.
The annual review provides an alternative to deal with the
increased number of
On 5/5/11 11:13 AM, 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 next few
Hi Julian,
At 22:12 09-05-2011, Julian Reschke wrote:
rfc2629.xslt allows specifying the intended maturity in the XML source...:
http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/rfc2629xslt.html#rfc.section.12.1.p.2
...but it's only metadata in the XML source. Maybe we should add it
to the ID
SM:
s much as I would like to use the IESG as a scapegoat, the reality is that
IETF working groups also work briskly to on impediments. Section 4 mentions
that the rules that prohibit references to documents at lower maturity
levels are a major cause of stagnation in the advancement of
On 09.05.2011 16:34, Russ Housley wrote:
...
My person experience with advancing documents is that downrefs are a
significant hindrance. As you point out, procedures have been adopted to
permit downrefs, but they are not sufficient. We often see Last Call repeated
just to resolve a downref
Hi Julian,
Julian Reschke wrote:
On 09.05.2011 16:34, Russ Housley wrote:
...
My person experience with advancing documents is that downrefs are a
significant hindrance. As you point out, procedures have been
adopted to permit downrefs, but they are not sufficient. We often
see Last
On 09.05.2011 18:10, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Hi Julian,
Julian Reschke wrote:
On 09.05.2011 16:34, Russ Housley wrote:
...
My person experience with advancing documents is that downrefs are a
significant hindrance. As you point out, procedures have been adopted
to permit downrefs, but they
Hi Russ,
At 07:34 09-05-2011, Russ Housley wrote:
My person experience with advancing documents is that downrefs are a
significant
Thanks for sharing that.
hindrance. As you point out, procedures have been adopted to
permit downrefs, but they are not sufficient. We often see Last
Call
On 09.05.2011 19:07, SM wrote:
...
For what it is worth, the draft was intended for publication as an
Internet Standard (STD 71). As I see it, the problem here is that
Intended status: Standards Track is assumed to be Proposed Standard.
As the Document Shepherd runs a draft through Id-nits, he
At 09:13 05-05-2011, 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 next few
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
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
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
), they
will continue to do this.
Two possible actions are available:
(1) A Draft Standard may be reclassified as an Internet Standard as
soon as the criteria inSection 2.2
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-06#section-2.2
are satisfied. This
[ . . . ]
(2) At any
I am opposed to approving this document as BCP. It is trying to solve the
wrong problem; or to put it another way, it is trying to solve a relatively
minor problem in a way that distracts attention away from more important
problems. Approval of this document will exacerbate an already bad
On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 09:13:06AM -0700, 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
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.
Given that to the wider world, an RFC is an RFC, I think this
represents a mistake. Instead, in common with
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, specifically, are the parts of the proposal that you believe
The document currently says:
Downward normative references to Informational documents continue to
be allowed using the procedure specified in RFC 3967 [2].
Downward normative references to Historic documents, Experimental
documents, and Internet-Draft documents continue to be
Ted:
The document currently says:
Downward normative references to Informational documents continue to
be allowed using the procedure specified in RFC 3967 [2].
Downward normative references to Historic documents, Experimental
documents, and Internet-Draft documents continue
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 on the standards
track. I see it as window dressing and, thus, a diversion from the
technical work the
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com wrote:
I strongly object to this text in Section 5:
2) At any time after two years from the approval of this document as
a BCP, the IESG may choose to reclassify any Draft Standard
document as Proposed
, she said arguments made during Last Call.
As a result, I cannot endorse the approval of this ID as it exists today, but
could see it being changed to address these concerns.
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-06.txt (Reducing
the Standards Track
I think this draft may do a little good, but mostly based on the
attention it brings to the issue.
If it is actually desired to make it easier to become a Proposed
Standard, it would be quite easy and straightforward to take real
steps that would make a real different. For example, to *prohibit*
[mailto:ietf-announce-
boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The IESG
Sent: 05 May 2011 17:13
To: IETF-Announce
Subject: Last Call: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-06.txt (Reducing the
Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels) to BCP
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter
On May 5, 2011, at 12:50 PM, Ross Callon wrote:
I support publishing this document as a BCP.
While I understand that this does not solve all conceivable problems with the
world, nonetheless I see this as a small but significant step in the right
direction.
Hear, hear. +1.
Melinda
Donald Eastlake d3e...@gmail.com wrote:
If it is actually desired to make it easier to become a Proposed
Standard, it would be quite easy and straightforward to take real
steps that would make a real different. For example, to *prohibit* the
requirement of multiple interoperable
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 on the standards
track.
We currently have a
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 next few weeks, and solicits
final comments
66 matches
Mail list logo
