Hi Eliot, Michael,
I fully support the idea of a side-meeting in Vienna. To address
Michael’s points:
My framework (Points 1–9) is exactly the system of reviewed composable
blocks you are imagining. By separating the Core (Part 1) from
Extensions (Parts 2–5) and Abstract Test Suites (Part 9), we solve the
"rewrite all" problem Eliot mentioned.
As an operator (30 years experience), I would add to your meeting
agenda:
- Audit-ability by Design: How do we ensure that "progressive
revisions" remain verifiable? (Reference: ISO 9646).
- Namespace Hygiene: How do we prevent the 100k collapse while moving
to incremental updates?
- Tooling for Integrität: Can the new rfc-editor.org site handle a 1:N
relationship between Cores and Modules?
I am finalizing a formal Draft of this architecture by Friday. It should
serve as a concrete baseline for the discussion in Vienna. Let’s stop
talking about "vague steps" and start building structural integrity.
Regards,
Timo
Am 18.05.26 um 17:19 schrieb Michael Richardson:
Eliot Lear <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'd like to see us focus on that ability to progressively revise
> specifications. Is that something we might want to grab a room to
> discuss in Vienna? I'm thinking about the following:
okay.
> * What are the process limits?
> * What are the tooling limits?
> * Are the requirements of all levels of the stack the same?
> * Related, what are the necessary interoperability requirements?
Interesting questions.
I would add to this the question of whether or not the Proposed Standard ->
Internet Standard step is too hard, too vague, and whether it's worth fixing,
or worth killing IS (as a few people want to do. Not me... not exactly)
> Even if we keep the process the same, can we improve other aspects,
> like how readers view errata or evolutions of works like TLS. We've
> got another one coming: TEAPv2. We don't need to rewrite *all* of
> TEAP, but rather do some incremental changes.
Yes, I don't know if you are imagining some kind of system of already
reviewed composable blocks, or what here :-)
The rfc-editor.org site rework got delayed to this week, and it might well be
that some issues are just now gone or different or maybe even worse :-(
Eliot, side-meetings are hard to schedule, but I'll try to make it if you
schedule it.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
** My working hours and your working hours may be different. **
** Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours **
--
Timo Gerke
Lohkoppelweg 40
22529 Hamburg
Germany
Fon: +49-40-24433033
Fax: +49-40-22628453
If you think technology can solve your security problems,
then you don't understand the problems and you don't
understand the technology.
Bruce Schneier, amerikanischer Kryptograph
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
