IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] On "supporting the publication of this document"

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Tue, 10 May 2011 21:10 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3025EE06F0 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 May 2011 14:10:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.414
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.414 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.185, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GEO0bEtb7hkN for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 May 2011 14:10:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1171AE06DB for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 May 2011 14:10:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-221.cisco.com (dhcp-64-101-72-221.cisco.com [64.101.72.221]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B9696400F9; Tue, 10 May 2011 15:10:22 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4DC9A9B9.3010702@stpeter.im>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 15:10:17 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
References: <4DC88255.3070403@qualcomm.com> <4DC94F74.30905@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <4DC94F74.30905@dcrocker.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="------------ms000808000808010201000602"
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] On "supporting the publication of this document"
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 21:10:25 -0000

On 5/10/11 8:45 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

> Your note suggests that, at the least, the text of a Last Call should
> make much more clear what sorts of comments are being sought (and why
> and probably from whom.)  The community should not have to guess what
> sorts of responses are useful for the IESG.

FWIW, over in the XMPP Standards Foundation (xmpp.org) we ask the
following questions in each of our Last Call announcements:

#    Please consider the following questions during this Last Call and
#    send your feedback to the standards@xmpp.org discussion list:
#
#    1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP
#       protocol stack or to clarify an existing protocol?
#    2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the
#       introduction and requirements?
#    3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code?
#       If not, why not?
#    4. Do you have any security concerns related to this specification?
#    5. Is the specification accurate and clearly written?

Whether that's the right set of questions is another issue...

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email