Subject: Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 19:32:15 -0400

There have been conflicting suggestions about the best way forward.  We have constructed an updated proposal.  It has been posted as draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-04.

Russ

---

From: Stefan Santesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 07:57:19 +0100

I have made some significant improvements to the NroffEdit IETF draft
editor.

Most notably, NroffEdit will now build your list of references
automatically based on the IETF citation library.
A new "look for update" function will automatically download the latest
version of the library as well as update template files and check if there
is a more recent version of NroffEdit available.

Thus I will no longer have to advertise updates.

The new features are exemplified in the new template file for new drafts.

More information and files for download are available from
http://aaa-sec.com/nroffedit/index.html

I will hold a tutorial session with Alice Hagens on Sunday March 27, 15.00
where NroffEdit and xml2rfc will be presented and demonstrated.

/Stefan

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 21:47:31 -0400

There seems to be a minor but important inconsistency which leaves us 
still not clearly addressing the interoperability issues.

The commentary text on the second standards level includes, when 
commenting on the removal of the requirement for interoperability 
testing reports:
    subsumed by the requirement for
    actual deployment and use of independent and interoperable
    implementations.

While not perfect (nothing is), such a requirement would probably leave 
me satisfied.  However, there is no requirement in general for multiple 
independent implementations.  There is a requirement for multiple 
implementations and successful operational experience.  There is only a 
requirement for independent implementations relative to patented or 
otherwise controlled technologies.  And even that requirement does not 
say anything about any interoperability of those independent 
implementations.

Yours,
Joel

On 3/13/2011 7:32 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>

---

From: Stefan Santesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 03:16:24 +0100

While the heat is on...

I decided to clear my list of requested features and just pushed out
version 1.51 of NroffEdit out the door.
This includes selectable fonts styles and sizes, styling of the text
output and automatic warning if you produce lines longer than 72
characters etc. The page viewing function has also been improved and
utilizes the selected font size.

Please don't hesitate to let me know if you miss anything (or like
anything). I try to maintain a list for long dark winter nights...

/Stefan

http://aaa-sec.com/nroffedit/nroffedit/download.html

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:32:40 +0200

Russ, all,

Another proposal as for your document.  So, it fails to mention what are 
the procedures for reclassification of Standards Track RFCs to 
Historic.  Therefore, I propose the following text:

>
> 6.  Procedures for Reclassification of Standards Track RFCs as 
> Historic Documents
>
> Under some circumstances Standards Track RFCs may be reclassified to 
> Historic document (i. e. its initial status may be changed to 
> Historic).  RFC 2026 [1], as well as its predecessors, contains some 
> words about the Historic RFCs, but it failes to define the procedures 
> for reclassification of RFCs to Historic status.  Such situation, of 
> course, causes misunderstandings of the members of the community.  
> This document removes this uncertainty; it defines the circumstances 
> under what the Standards Track RFC should be moved to Historic status 
> and describes the procedures for such action.
>
> The Standards Track RFC, either Proposed Standard or Internet 
> Standard, should be considered to be appropriate for reclassification 
> as Historic document if (a) there is another document that replaces it 
> or (b) it described the protocol or other technology that got out-of-use.
>
> In the case mentioned as (a) above the superseding document should 
> just have the notice of the necessity of reclassification of its 
> predecessor to Historic.  However such action is not obligatory.
>
> In the case mentioned as (b) above the procedure is as follows.  If 
> the individual or a group of individuals (e. g. IETF working group) 
> assume that the protocol or other technology defined in the Standards 
> Track RFC is now out-of-use and is very unlikely to become widely used 
> in the future, they SHALL apply to IESG to request the 
> reclassification of such document to Historic.  IESG SHALL then issue 
> the IETF-wide Last Call on this action, not shorter than 2 weeks, in 
> order to determine whether there is the community consensus on 
> reclassification.  If Last Call did not reveal community objection to 
> this action, this document SHALL be reclassified to Historic.
>
> During the sunset period, set by this document, Draft Standards SHALL 
> be reclassified to Historic using the procedure as defined above.
... and renumber the following sections.

What do you think about this proposal?

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:42:18 -0400

As far as I can tell, your proposal does not match the meaning we use 
for Historic.
More importantly, there does not seem to be a problem that needs to be 
addressed in this area.
Most importantly, if there is a problem, it should in my opinion be 
addressed separately from the topic of this draft.  Please do not 
conflate the two.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

On 3/24/2011 11:32 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> the procedures for reclassification of Standards Track RFCs to Historic.
> Therefore, I propose the following text:
>
>>
>> 6. Procedures for Reclassification of Standards Track RFCs as Historic
>> Documents
>>
>> course, causes misunderstandings of the members of the community. This
>> document removes this uncertainty; it defines the circumstances under
>> what the Standards Track RFC should be moved to Historic status and
>> describes the procedures for such action.
>>
>> In the case mentioned as (b) above the procedure is as follows. If the
>> individual or a group of individuals (e. g. IETF working group) assume
>> that the protocol or other technology defined in the Standards Track
>> RFC is now out-of-use and is very unlikely to become widely used in
>> the future, they SHALL apply to IESG to request the reclassification
>> of such document to Historic. IESG SHALL then issue the IETF-wide Last
>> Call on this action, not shorter than 2 weeks, in order to determine
>> whether there is the community consensus on reclassification. If Last
>> Call did not reveal community objection to this action, this document
>> SHALL be reclassified to Historic.
>>
>> There have been conflicting suggestions about the best way forward. We
>> have constructed an updated proposal. It has been posted as
>> draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-04.
>>
>> Russ

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:49:07 +0200

> addressed separately from the topic of this draft.  Please do not 
While it is not directly related to the draft's topic, it it just an 
attempt since this draft is very likely to become published unlike the 
separate proposal on this topic.

Mykyta

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:01:27 +0100

On 3/24/2011 4:49 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:>
>>> the procedures for reclassification of Standards Track RFCs to Historic.

Generally, the document tries to limit itself to discussion of what it changes.

There are no changes proposed for moving to Historic. (The question of Historic 
has not been part of the many discussions about streamlining the standards 
labeling.)

Hence that issue is out of scope for the document.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:13:14 +0100

On Mar 24, 2011, at 5:01 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

> There are no changes proposed for moving to Historic. (The question of Historic has not been part of the many discussions about streamlining the standards labeling.)
> 

+1

Bob

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 21:10:37 -0400

Agreed.