Subject: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 17:46:22 -0400

After extensive discussion on this list and in the IESG Russ has decided 
to make a reduced proposal. I am now initiating a new Last Call to gauge 
consensus on the new version. I believe this version is more focused, 
narrower, and removes many of the parts that people had problems with in 
the previous Last Call. This version certainly does not solve all 
problems in the IETF process, but I at least see this as a small 
positive step.

But this is obviously also a different proposal so discussion is 
required to move forward. I did not think we had consensus to move 
forward with the previous version. I do not yet know if we have 
consensus to move forward with this. But at least the proposal is now 
clearer which should make it possible to get a better view of whether 
the core of Russ' proposal has support to move forward. I certainly hope 
it does.

The proposal still cuts the number of levels to two, and removes the 
yearly review. However, downref changes, motivations related to too much 
scrutiny, discussion of the STD number, etc. are gone. (Many of the 
things taken out of this proposal can be worthwhile topics to pursue, 
but if we take them forward we need to do so separately.)

Here's the link:

  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

Diff to the previously last called version:

http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-06.txt&url2=draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-08.txt

Jari

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 13:54:32 +1200

On 2011-07-28 09:46, Jari Arkko wrote:
> consensus on the new version. 

Thankyou. I fully support this version.

  Brian Carpenter

---

From: Chris Newman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 22:28:06 -0400

I have read version 08 and support this proposal.

		- Chris