Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels
draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-09
Yes
(Dan Romascanu)
(Jari Arkko)
(Peter Saint-Andre)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Wesley Eddy)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(David Harrington)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Pete Resnick)
(Ralph Droms)
Recuse
(Russ Housley)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Peter Saint-Andre Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2011-06-07)
Unknown
Section 2 contains the following: Experience with a Proposed Standard often leads to revisions that clarify, modify, enhance, or remove features. Review of revisions to a Proposed Standard that is submitted for publication at the same maturity level is generally limited to the changes. Perhaps r/the changes/these types of changes ? RFC 5967 already updates RFC 2026, but a reference to RFC 2026 in Section 2.2 would be helpful to those writing implementation reports.
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
(was No Objection)
Yes
Yes
(2011-09-02)
Unknown
I'm changing to Yes on this based on the recent mails to
ietf-discuss. I continue to think there is rough consensus for
2 levels but am motivated to move to a Yes by the arguments
of those against moving to 2 levels which appear to me
indistinguishable from obfuscation. (Which could be
deliberate or a side-effect of some honestly held opinion,
its not really possible to say.)
This is such a boring topic that a funny quote seems
worthwhile:
“A Frenchman once tried to obfuscate me from behind.
Although I protested out of sheer principle, I must
confess that I thoroughly enjoyed it.”
~ Oscar Wilde on Obfuscation
I think the always-reliable Oscar's quote is as relevant as
the objections to 2 levels that I've seen so far.
My original comment was:
I still don't know from reading this if STD numbers will be
allocated for "Internet Standard" RFCs. I don't mind if
they are or not, but confusion about it doesn't seem good.
For example, what'll happen to [1]?
[1] http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html#STDbySTD
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Harrington Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-06-22)
Unknown
nit - Introduction "This document proposes several changes " should presumably be "This document makes several changes " I am concerned about the following: "Note that the distinct requirement from RFC 2026 [1] for reports of interoperability testing among two or more independent implementations is intentionally subsumed by the requirement for actual deployment and use of independent and interoperable implementations." We really need to consider defining "independent". NTP is a good illustration of the problem - there are lots of boxes out here that run NTP which some may perceive as independent implementations. However they all seem to run the code written by Dave Mills' project arguably making them a single implementation. Since we touching on the subject we should clarify what we mean by "independent" give the existence of open source.
Russ Housley Former IESG member
Recuse
Recuse
()
Unknown