Re: Who raised the bar? [Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



At 16:01 06-09-2011, Cullen Jennings wrote:
I don't believe the IESG raised the bar, I think the community raised it in a series of IETF Last Calls. And I think this is good - if this document were lowing the PS bar from what it is today, I'd be strongly objecting to it. The problem in my mind is getting work done quickly, not figuring out how to lower the quality of our work.

draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns-00 was published in 2001 and version 14 in February 2011. There is an IPR disclosure. If the proposal were to advance along the Standards Track, the following might be applicable:

  "If patented or otherwise controlled technology is required for
   implementation, the separate implementations must also have resulted
   from separate exercise of the licensing process."

The draft went through several Last Calls. If I recall correctly, there were some objections raised during the Last Call. I doubt whether the community is aware of what changes were agreed upon given that this is an individual submission which finally got processed after four months.

This is a draft which is going to be evaluated shortly. It got the following comment:

  "Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2818"

I could nit-pick and say that the write-up mentioned that and the RFC is listed in the Downref registry. Anyway, could someone please explain to me what is the rationale for flagging downrefs if the it's a one-step process in practice?

Is it as Sam Hartman said, a nice game of "publish that doc" and people have to get out their copy of the IETF rules, the IETF rules errata and the IETF player's magazine articles with rules commentary and figure out what is going on?

draft-hixie-thewebsocketprotocol-76 was submitted in May 2010. There were at least two implementations. Would it qualify for Proposed Standard?

draft-ietf-avt-srtp-not-mandatory-07 is the output of a working group. One of the DISCUSSes mention that:

 "This draft seems to say that BCP 61 does not apply to RTP.  BCP 61
  describes the "Danvers Doctrine", which says that the IETF should
  standardize on the use of the best security available, regardless of
  national policies."

It's been over a year since the above point has been raised. The draft has not been published yet.

draft-ietf-mboned-ssmping-08 has five DISCUSSes, one of which says:

 "The mboned charter says:
   This is not meant to be a protocol development Working Group.

  Is this not a protocol? In which other WGs has it been reviewed?"

I don't know who raised the bar. It doesn't really matter unless people confuse finger pointing with problem solving. The requirements frustrate implementers, which is understandable, when there is no relation between quality and known technical defects.

Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]