On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Julian Reschke
<julian(_dot_)reschke(_at_)gmx(_dot_)de>wrote:
On 2011-09-07 00:01, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2011-09-07 09:35, Ted Hardie wrote:
...
My personal opinion for some time has been that we ought to recognize
that
the previous PS moved into "WG draft" years ago and that anything named
an
RFC should be recognized as something that market will consider a
standard.
And who raised the bar? It wasn't the IESG, it was the market, and more
specifically the product managers and IT managers who adopted RFC
conformance
as their criterion.
I'm a bit fed up with the IESG being blamed for this, rather than being
congratulated on adapting to it.
...
Well, if that's really what happened, then draft-housley-two-maturity-**levels
seems to solve the wrong problem.
Best regards, Julian
In at least one reading, it could be said that this draft is trying to push
against that market perception by re-lowering the bar for PS, contrary to
the market reality. I occasionally find a little windmill tilting
refreshing, but I'm confused, Brian, as to why you both want the IESG
congratulated for adapting to that reality and simultaneously wants them to
adopt this.
But possibly a hobgoblin is preying on my little mind, despite my being
neither statesman, nor philosopher, nor divine.
Ted
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf