On 2008-01-22 11:24, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> As a procedural matter, I agree with Scott and John. This
> document should not be considered for advancement at this
> time nor until such time as there is real evidence of
> widespread consensus.
Actually, I agree too, but I also agree with Russ that the
discussion needed something noticeable to trigger it.
>
> As a substantive issue, renaming PS and DS to Preliminary
> and Deplyable strikes me as a terrible idea. Whatever the
> merits of the current names, they are the ones we have and
> changing them now will only create confusion. Deployable
> is a particularly bad choice since PSs are regularly
> deployed.
I will listen to the consensus view on this, of course.
I think we have to recognize that the original roles
intended for PS and DS have been changed in practice,
and that may be hard for newcomers to appreciate.
Brian
>
> -Ekr
>
> At Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:07:33 -0500,
> John C Klensin wrote:
>>
>>
>> --On Monday, 21 January, 2008 16:50 -0500 "Scott O. Bradner"
>> <sob@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> sorry - it does not make any sense at all to last call this
>>> document
>>>
>>> it has had no meaningful discussion - we should not be
>>> updating our core process documents this flippantly
>> FWIW, while I don't see anything flippant in either the author's
>> intentions or in the Last Call announcement, I have to agree
>> with Scott. Only a couple of people commented on this prior to
>> the Last Call announcement. I fear that confirms my hypothesis
>> that the community has gotten burned out on process work and
>> that it is going to be very hard to get meaningful consensus on
>> changes across the community (rather than among those who get
>> excited about process issues).
>>
>> Even ignoring the issue of how meaningful consensus is to be
>> determined, my recollection is that some of the few comments
>> pointed out problems and suggested changes which the author
>> agreed to make. That would suggest that we should at least see
>> a revision (to -03) that reflects the author's latest thinking
>> before a Last Call is announced.
>>
>> Significant changes to 2026 --even changes that the author
>> believes are just updates to reflect current practice-- are
>> important enough to justify, e.g., a plenary presentation and
>> discussion in Philadelphia. We've got too much experience
>> making changes to process documents that seemed reasonable, did
>> not get careful and extensive review, and that turned out to
>> have significant unintended consequences. A conclusion that the
>> document isn't important enough to justify plenary discussion or
>> the equivalent is, for me, a conclusion that we don't need it
>> right now.
>>
>> john
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ietf mailing list
>> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf