Re: I-D Action:draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-04.txt

Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 15 March 2011 19:07 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F410D3A6AAF for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:07:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4XqVubjRaPbm for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:07:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1D4C3A6A72 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:07:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ywi6 with SMTP id 6so444735ywi.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:09:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=VD5ztClUpz/dzGcLKB69kFZrV/3H2aINm/5r9ElTKEg=; b=v0o42GHpvzTi57Vg5H1+14yrnRKZMp25DkD6Xb4bfaUw4PPty+xzFC211naVMQK2Gb gXGEdzNRbSVbils8KOKDn6tZgKP4oc+l8wI2J28F+VNCHhhGJA2JiQ6wxaZbXzw/RRax zKH21JcnF/Mm1qnDD+s+N0TPSIzjwJG/HgObE=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=vvZhaqdZr6aKurpFY79QYCqkDECe/RcjI5twwhOUUP03HLHYRZK65eTl6VUR/mM/9L ALlxb8dLUBW6njnYrWTe/1ZIFzvdsJrNAzH7yLnMZvbMzukDnOMLnPh0g6DpzWxWpGCl Ske864aRbIp005d+w289ozoAppcqp6Lyj0gQU=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.90.250.8 with SMTP id x8mr399890agh.164.1300216141759; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:09:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.90.49.17 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:09:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimG5G5_aVron+x1h9X1N20E8O+8gJd409AAEsGz@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110313233002.30569.91828.idtracker@localhost> <4D7E8312.2020101@gmail.com> <AANLkTimG5G5_aVron+x1h9X1N20E8O+8gJd409AAEsGz@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 08:09:01 +1300
Message-ID: <AANLkTimXT3SfR1UB3v9TUhqntn2js6mtvmpjAK=YQoqw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-04.txt
From: Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 19:07:38 -0000

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:03 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev
<evnikita2@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> 2011/3/14, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>:
>> There are numerous improvements in this version and I hope we
>> can get consensus soon.
>>
>> Just a couple of remarks on
>>  5. Transition to a Standards Track with Two Maturity Levels
>>
>> 1) Probably there should be a statement that all existing
>>    Internet Standard documents are still classified as Internet Standard.
>>    That may seem blindingly obvious, but if we don't write it down,
>>    somebody will ask.
>>
>> 2) More substantively,
>>
>>    "Any protocol or service that is currently at the Draft Standard
>>     maturity level may be reclassified as an Internet Standard as soon as
>>     the criteria in Section 2.2 are satisfied. This reclassification is
>>     accomplished by submitting a request to the IESG along with a
>>     description of the implementation and operational experience. "
>>
>> I'm a bit concerned that this doesn't scale, and we will be left
>> with a long tail of DS documents that end up in limbo. One way to avoid
>> this is to encourage bulk reclassifications (rather like we did a bulk
>> declassification in RFC 4450). Another way is to define a sunset date,
>> e.g.
>>
>>    Any documents that are still classified as Draft Standard two years
>>    after the publication of this RFC will be automatically downgraded
>>    to Proposed Standard.
>>
> I'm personally not sure whether such operations will be acceptable.
> If there is a Draft Standard, it means that it is more mature that
> Proposed Standrad.  Therefore downgrading DSs to PSs does not seem a
> good idea personally for me.  It is better to say that DSs should
> remain in this maturity level until properly advanced to FS, obsoleted
> or moved to Historic status.

All our experience shows that unless we have a firm sunset date, the job
will never be finished and in fifty years there will still be DS documents.

If nobody cares - the document will be downgraded. What's the problem
with that? It will still be on the standards track.

(Automatic downgrading to Historic would be a different matter.)

     Brian