Subject: RE: [newtrk] FWD: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-newtrk-antiques-00.txt

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 19:25:50 +0300

John,

I gave this document a quick read when it was announced, and I basically
agree with your premise.  I haven't done a nit-picky review of it (I'll
leave that job for others).  What do you think should be the next steps?
I think we should just do it.

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of ext John C Klensin
> Sent: 27 May, 2004 17:23
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [newtrk] FWD: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-newtrk-antiques-00.txt
> 
> 
> For whatever it is worth, this document is a first cut at the 
> "let's get what should be promoted, promoted" specification that 
> I promised as the complement to Eliot's/Harald's draft on 
> cleaning up the history.
> 
> It really addresses the other end of the process from the one 
> Scott wants to concentrate on -- from my point of view, more 
> clarity and specificity about what we really want out of 
> Proposed would benefit either of this pair of proposals.  In 
> that sense, this document is an attempt to address the next-step 
> question or what our real expectations are for Draft/Full and 
> whether those expectations are mostly about the protocol (and 
> its usefulness, deployment, interoperability, etc) or mostly 
> about the documents.
> 
>     john
> 

.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 15:08:33 -0400

--On Thursday, 27 May, 2004 19:25 +0300 [email-masked]
wrote:

> John,
> 
> I gave this document a quick read when it was announced, and I
> basically agree with your premise.  I haven't done a nit-picky
> review of it (I'll leave that job for others).  What do you
> think should be the next steps? I think we should just do it.

It seems to me that it has two prerequisites...

(1) Establishment of the "Commission" model of
draft-alvestrand-newtrk-historical..." or something equivalent
(which presumably would need describing).

(2) Sorting out of IESG attitudes toward all of this.  Taking an
example from my recent response to Keith, any reasonable process
that concentrates on implementation, deployment, and usefulness
is going to move "finger" and "whois" to IS in a hurry (although
one could write other criteria that would hold them back and let
other things through).  I have my doubts that, in practice, the
IESG is ready to do that, no matter who or what recommends it:
no "security considerations" section (and no security), no IANA
registries for the various parameters that might be used, no
authentication model for either the client or the server,
incomplete specifications in the sense that the dialogs are not
precisely specified, and so on.  As with so many other things in
this "we should just try it" area, if the IESG is not enthused,
then the odds of anything happening are sufficiently low that
setting up the review process may not be worth the trouble.

     john

.