Re: PS Characterization Clarified

[Olaf Kolkman <olaf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 13 sep. 2013, at 21:02, Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hey Olaf,

 

Thanks for stubbornly pushing on with this.

 

Comments (sorry I haven't read the thread to see if others have already made these comments)…

This is to acknowledge I took the suggestions that I am not quoting.

---

 

Section 2

 

   clarity of the standards document

 

Prefer "Standards Track document"

 

This is a change to the original 2026 language, but I support it it makes really clear what we are taking about.

---

 

Section 2

 

   over the last decade or more have had extensive review.

 

...by the IESG?

...by or on behalf of the IESG?

That is already explained in the paragraphs above. I propose to just keep the focus on the document having had review and not make an addition to that sentence.

On the other hand, elsewhere in the thread John Klensin made the case that we should stress that the IESG does this quality assurance since that is different from other SDOs, this might be a good place to add that extra emphasis.

As said, I keep the text as is for now but I will take editorial guidance if this is a serious issue.

 

---

 

Section 2

 

   Because of this change in review assumptions, IETF Proposed Standards

   should be considered to be at least as mature as final standards from

   other standards development organizations.  In fact, the IETF review

   is more extensive than is done in other SDOs due to the cross-area

   technical review performed by the IESG.

 

I wonder whether you should add

 

...a position that is further strengthened by the implementation and running code that is often present before publication as a Proposed Standard.

 

Added, but with the word "Interoperable" added. Could you review if this is still proper English and contact me off-list if it isn't:

      In fact, the

      IETF review is more extensive than is done in other SDOs due to

      the cross-area technical review performed by the IESG, a

      position that is further strengthened by the regular precense of

      interoperable implementation and running code before publication

      as a Proposed Standard.

 

---

 

Section 3.1

 

   Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is

   required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed

   Standard.  However, such experience is highly desirable, and will

   usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard

   designation.

 

You could add

 

... and may be tracked and reported as described in [RFC6982]

 

Hmmm.. I want to be careful with that reference. It is an experimental document and increases the referential complexity for little benefit.

Until serious pushback otherwise I propose to not take over this suggestion.

---

 

Section 3.1

 

Two paragraphs seem to enjoy some duplication in their final sentences.

 

   A Proposed Standard specification is stable, has resolved known

   design choices, is well-understood, has received significant

   community review, and appears to enjoy enough community interest to

   be considered valuable.  However, as with all technical standards,

   further experience might result in a change or even retraction of the

   specification in the future.

 

and

 

   A Proposed Standard will have no known technical omissions with

   respect to the requirements placed upon it.  Proposed Standards are

   of such quality that implementations can be deployed in the Internet.

   However, as with all technical specifications, Proposed Standards may

   be revised if problems are found or better solutions are identified,

   when experiences with deploying implementations of such technologies

   at scale is gathered.

 

Fixed by removing that final sentence at first occurrence.

I'll wait a few days to see discussion converge before posting 02 in the mean time:

pre 02 is at:

http://www.secret-wg.org/Secret-Media/draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified-pre02-2013091600.txt

with a diff at:

http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified-01.txt&url2=http://www.secret-wg.org/Secret-Media/draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified-pre02-2013091600.txt

Thanks,

--Olaf

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail