ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

2011-09-02 17:31:15
First, I'm in full agreement with Ross.

Second, for the record and as a response to Keith, my read of the discussion on the last call was 
the biggest group of responses said that we should move forward with the draft. There were two 
smaller groups, those with a clear objection and those with roughly a "no-objection" or 
"it does not cause harm" opinion (and a group who seemed to discuss orthogonal issues and 
not respond to the question). I could of course have made mistakes in this determination, but I 
thought it was rough (perhaps very rough) consensus.

Of course, it gets more interesting if you start thinking about the reasons why 
people wanted to move forward. Keith's latest e-mail has interesting theories 
about those. I don't think anyone thinks this is the priority #1 process fix 
for the IETF. For me, cleaning cruft from the IETF process RFCs is a big reason 
for supporting this work. And I must admit that we seem to be in a place where 
its very, very hard to make _any_ process RFC changes. Getting one done, even 
if its a small change would by itself be useful, IMO. Finally, I think two 
levels are enough.

Jari

On 03.09.2011 00:34, Keith Moore wrote:
(iii) Any consensus that a 2 step process is better than a 3 step process.


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

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