Hi SM, Pardon me; 1)Is there such thing as a "good enough" Criteria to handle this concern? 2)Or as usual it passes "rough consensus" process? Regards, Medel ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----Original Message----- From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of SM Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 5:45 PM To: Russ Housley Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-08.txt>(Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels) to BCP Hi Russ, At 12:28 PM 8/3/2011, Russ Housley wrote: >I am well aware of the implementation reports. The premise here is >that the protocol specification is "good enough" there are at least >two interoperable implementations and the protocol is deployed >widely. The implementation report would become optional. One of the advantages of an implementation report is that it provides a statement about interoperability between two or more known implementations. If there is any dispute about that claim, it can be resolved in a non-controversial way. Determining whether a protocol is widely deployed is not always a clear-cut decision. >People are not doing many implementation reports. As you say above, >there are only about 75 of them. How many protocols are documented >in RFCs? That is a very low percentage in my view. Yes, it's a very low percentage. I don't have the figure for the number of protocols documented. Given the low barrier for such reports, I would have expected to see more reports. After all, if the RFC has been published, the protocol has been widely deployed, it should simply have been a matter of filing the short report. From draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-08: "this document measures interoperability through widespread deployment of multiple implementations from different code bases, thus condensing the two separate metrics into one." This change is expected to solve the problem. I am not convinced that the metrics is the problem. >So, I see the cost quite differently. Most protocols are published >as Proposed Standards, and they are never advanced. I'm seeking a >process where implementation and deployment experience actually >improves the protocol specifications. Today, that rarely happens, >and when it does, the Agreed. I didn't find any incentive to inject implementation and deployment experience into the process. >This is an argument for the status quo. We have decades of >experience with that not working. That is essentially an argument >for a single maturity level; that is how the process is really working today. I am not arguing for a single maturity level (the status quo). I do not agree with the conclusion that the decades of stagnation is due to the three maturity level. >This document is not about IESG review time, except for the >elimination of the requirement for annual reviews which are not done >anyway. If that is what you get from the document, then I have done >a very poor job in writing it. That is not the point at all. I don't think that you did a poor job. A three maturity level requires three IESG Evaluations. A two maturity level requires two IESG Evaluations. If more documents moved from Proposed Standard to the next level, it would obviously take more IESG review time. I presume that the IESG will only use the following criteria for advancement: - two independent interoperating implementations with widespread deployment and successful operational experience - no errata against the specification - no unused features in the specification And there won't be any DISCUSSes along the lines of: "I don't think the implementation reports are adequate for me to meet the requirements of 2026. It does not clearly identify what software was used or show support of each of the individual options and features." "Examples througout the document make use of non-example domains." "The implementation report is woefully inadequate to document there are interoperable implementations of all the features from two different code bases." "My Discuss was not addressed at all - I believe that the WG ignored the spirit of the implementation report requirement - my Discuss said that we should know that there are multiple implementations that have handled the significant changes in the recycling of this Draft Standard. The group apparently refused to update its implementation report" Regards, -sm _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the use of the individual or the entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential and exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete this E-mail message immediately. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf