ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: <draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-08.txt> (Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels) to BCP

2011-08-13 13:46:17
To add one observation to SM's comment and other observations
that the scarcity of implementation reports implies that they
are somehow difficult...

--On Friday, August 05, 2011 02:45 -0700 SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net>
wrote:
 
I presume that the IESG will only use the following criteria
for advancement:

  - two independent interoperating implementations with
widespread
    deployment and successful operational experience

  - no errata against the specification

  - no unused features in the specification

And there won't be any DISCUSSes along the lines of:

   "I don't think the implementation reports are adequate for
me to meet the
    requirements of 2026. It does not clearly identify what
software was used or
    show support of each of the individual options and
features."

   "Examples througout the document make use of non-example
domains."

   "The implementation report is woefully inadequate to
document there are
    interoperable implementations of all the features from two
different code bases."

   "My Discuss was not addressed at all - I believe that the
WG ignored the
    spirit of the implementation report requirement - my
Discuss said that
    we should know that there are multiple implementations
that have
    handled the significant changes in the recycling of this
Draft Standard.
    The group apparently refused to update its implementation
report"

An alternate hypothesis about the low numbers of implementation
reports on file is that people try them, get responses like the
ones SM lists above, and react with "why bother -- this is a
waste of time that I can better spend in other ways".  And that
is the end, not just of the report being commented on, but any
others that could have come from that author or participant.

That pretty much nails it. We've allowed exactly these sorts of vague and
nonspecific discusses to stand, with the result that the pain of getting to
draft or full standard is seen as far greater than the gain.

The really surprising thing, frankly, is that we have as many draft and full
standards as we do. 

While it has not been raised as a specific argument for this
two-maturity-levels proposal, getting rid of formal
implementation reports might, for that reason, be useful in
getting documents advanced.  However, it does not improve the
case for two levels instead of three and won't help if IESG
members express the same thoughts --not in terms of
interoperability reports but in terms of lack of conviction the
interoperability had actually been demonstrated in the case of
that particular spec.

Actually it does in a way. Part of the problem with going to draft is that in
addition to it being painful and difficult, when it's over you're still not
done. And you have to wait for the final step, and when you get there it's not
all that well defined, either.

Really, this is Psych 101 stuff - it's been shown over and over that immediate
gratification wins out over long term satisfaction. Our three step process
sucks most if not all of the immediate gratification out of moving to draft.

And this is why I strongly support a move to a two step process. I think
the other changes that have been proposed are also important but I'll
take what I can get.

I note that, when RFC 4846 and what became 5742 were under
discussion, a then-IESG member pointed out to me that, despite
the restrictions in those documents, if something in a draft
really offended him, he could always find a way to state his
objections in a way that would conform to the 4846/5742 rules.
The same comment presumably applies to presumed proofs of
independent interoperable implementations.

I really have to wonder if the entire yes/no-obj/discuss voting model is
appropriate for document advancement. For initial approval at proposed, sure,
having the ability to "discuss" the document makes all sorts of sense. But
for subsequent steps that virtue is a lot obvious, to me at least.

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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>