[Top] [All Lists]

Re: prerequisite for change (was Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels)

2011-01-30 10:06:45
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 07:49:44AM -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Not on my part.  I'm merely observing that, if the claim is that you can't
alter deployed protocols, then there's no reason to say that we need two
maturity levels, because in fact nothing will advance past the first stage

The current proposal specifies a second maturity level that does not 
permit changing the technical specification.

Yes, I know.  I fail completely to see why anyone would ever do the
work for such movement of maturity level.  The proposal seems to me to
be something along the lines of giving gold stars to protocols with
people who are willing to do the busywork.  I don't have any special
objection to the proposal, and I don't really have strong feelings
about whether it goes anywhere.  But I don't believe it will change
things very much, and it feels to me more like a bureaucratic
improvement than something that helps IETF participants and consumers
of IETF protocols.


Andrew Sullivan
Shinkuro, Inc.
Ietf mailing list