IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Wed, 11 May 2011 21:06 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
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 C3219E079B for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 May 2011 14:06:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.044
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.044 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.067, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 Ax+Rfg+oo-D1 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 May 2011 14:06:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gw0-f44.google.com (mail-gw0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 380CFE06AE for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 May 2011 14:06:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gwb20 with SMTP id 20so393548gwb.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 May 2011 14:06:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=22F29FESOK/hA6k7cwS+qtLdI76G45/38ZVfmXL2d1k=; b=dT/IGn51EMcpTtAuGXlxSK5AUQdq4kaTQ/49F7AbZglGskl62akdkqwZCMoAO2v66w IGY0ncQpXJooovghu+JLEPdguoUVA7pdFvoC8lfzh9zn+LfB3vhZbiNWkMibBOKxCiaq hr0yW9PqWHH7el4a+gxbfWz9Ason06rr9Bfm4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=jCnTMzAAhTiUPWVUcR9IfYyJN196DZCZ27ywka1myuJFU8tX8EZX7ClvoVFbVLzAVT tUBt0ArNJg6nmfpd9FN7asE9/yHpzVbQr+nPSpdXkGX8Z8t7VJ1HMwwOGAWpwXhgwGOA pDMez0xMgVaL37q9kY3ZQ44O3cRDLqN6zJ/3k=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.73.41 with SMTP id v41mr8724483yba.106.1305147995409; Wed, 11 May 2011 14:06:35 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: by 10.147.137.13 with HTTP; Wed, 11 May 2011 14:06:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2B12C8610935B58EA60D9ADC@PST.JCK.COM>
References: <4DC88255.3070403@qualcomm.com> <4DC94F74.30905@dcrocker.net> <4DC9688B.3070701@qualcomm.com> <BANLkTi=cufk36YT+e1GsTjhkR+j-vd4O4A@mail.gmail.com> <2B12C8610935B58EA60D9ADC@PST.JCK.COM>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 17:06:35 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 70SG9ckOdejOI_zgx_g4BCPenvc
Message-ID: <BANLkTimoYk9W+8BG8vVsyJTuo-CBJN_qsw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
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: Wed, 11 May 2011 21:06:36 -0000

> figure out that, in measuring consensus about the technical
> quality of a document, its interactions (or lack thereof) with
> other work and protocols, etc., informed opinions from experts
> who have studied a document carefully are simply worth more
> than, to state the extreme case, endorsements from the clueless.
> Most of the time (I hope), when the IESG is doing a technical
> evaluation, they are looking at comments and criticisms
> (positive or negative), not counting the number of those
> comments.

OK.  I hadn't looked at Pete's comments that way, and I certainly
agree with this.

Barry

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email