ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-00

2010-06-19 14:49:13
In general, I think this is a good idea. It might succeed in reviving the notion of formal interoperability reports. A few comments though:

- Sec. 2 mentions that the criteria for Proposed Standard will not change. But the preceding section just described that our criteria (or processes) for publication are too onerous. So do we not address what's mentioned as a leading motivation for this change?

- I think the name "Interoperable Standard" is unfortunate. First, it's a mouthful. And second, it implies that whereas we didn't care about interoperability before, now we suddenly do. As an analogy, suppose we had "Proposed Standard" and "Secure Standard". Instead, I think "Full Standard" or "IETF Standard" would be better names. After all, people are looking to the IETF for standards.

- This is not to criticize the draft, but I am really wondering: at IPsecME we are close to publishing IKEv2-bis, and we went to great lengths to make it as faithful as possible to the original IKEv2 (RFC 4306), so that implementations that are compliant don't suddenly become non-compliant. Suppose we were to advance this large and complex protocol to the 2nd maturity level, is there a manageable process to eliminate features from the protocol (because there are no two implementations that implement said features) without worrying that some implementations out there have become non-compliant overnight?

Thanks,
        Yaron
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf