On 1/30/2011 8:06 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 07:49:44AM -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote:
The current proposal specifies a second maturity level that does not
permit changing the technical specification.
Yes, I know. I fail completely to see why anyone would ever do the
I believe this proposal to be dangerous and undesirable.
The fact is that the three stage process has never worked. As in not ever.
If you take a look at the current Internet standards over half of the total
are grandfathered from before the IETF was started.
You cannot return to a state that
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 09:27:17AM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
The raising of the bar for proposed standard has a very simple reason: it is
now almost impossible to change specifications once deployed.
That's an argument for _no_ maturity levels, then, not for two.
A
--
Andrew
On Jan 30, 2011, at 9:58 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 09:27:17AM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
The raising of the bar for proposed standard has a very simple reason: it is
now almost impossible to change specifications once deployed.
That's an argument for _no_
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 10:15:01AM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
That's an argument for _no_ maturity levels, then, not for two.
Is there an implicit assumption here that more standards (presumably of
poorer quality) is a good thing?
Not on my part. I'm merely observing that, if the
On Jan 30, 2011, at 10:35 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 10:15:01AM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
That's an argument for _no_ maturity levels, then, not for two.
Is there an implicit assumption here that more standards (presumably of
poorer quality) is a good thing?
On 1/30/2011 7:35 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Is there an implicit assumption here that more standards (presumably of
poorer quality) is a good thing?
Not on my part. I'm merely observing that, if the claim is that you can't
alter deployed protocols, then there's no reason to say that we
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 07:49:44AM -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Not on my part. I'm merely observing that, if the claim is that you can't
alter deployed protocols, then there's no reason to say that we need two
maturity levels, because in fact nothing will advance past the first stage
anyway.
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 09:27:17AM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
The raising of the bar for proposed standard has a very simple reason: it
is
now almost impossible to change specifications once deployed.
I've previously expressed my opinion that proposals to muck with the
number of steps in teh IETF standards process will no do anything
useful (i.e., will not be effective) - JOhn and I have just posted
what, to us, would be a prerequisite for amy process mucking proposal
to succeed
Scott
-
Hi Scott and John,
I don't see this as inconsistent with the current 2-stage proposal,
if the latter's omission of a requirement for independent interoperable
implementations for stage 2 is corrected.
I don't, however, believe that the problems are separable.
The bar for PS has crept up, IMHO,
--On Sunday, January 30, 2011 1:01 PM +1300 Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Scott and John,
I don't see this as inconsistent with the current 2-stage
proposal, if the latter's omission of a requirement for
independent interoperable implementations for stage 2 is
12 matches
Mail list logo
