IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-02.txt

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Tue, 25 October 2011 17:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ned.freed@mrochek.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 C49B821F8AF4 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 10:17:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.573
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.026, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OJnMB6ReZSk8 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 10:17:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C88A421F8A56 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 10:17:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01O7MPSZFI9S017BPI@mauve.mrochek.com> for apps-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 10:14:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01O7HN0KKSXC00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com>; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 10:14:14 -0700 (PDT)
Message-id: <01O7MPSWCQIQ00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 10:08:51 -0700
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Tue, 25 Oct 2011 11:54:58 -0500" <4EA6E9E2.2080308@qualcomm.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; Format="flowed"
References: <20111018191615.13760.71231.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CADBvc98iHh4Nk4S0ipkSs3ATKTVBM_qALM9gGApj5gaW27t4nQ@mail.gmail.com> <01O7EEVR67JU00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C14B3F@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <4EA6E9E2.2080308@qualcomm.com>
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-02.txt
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, 25 Oct 2011 17:17:04 -0000

> On 10/19/11 1:39 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

> >>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg69885.html
> >>>
> >> ...the applicability of the two maturity level stuff to this effort is for the IESG to sort out.
> >>
> > Concur on all points.
> >

> The IESG is of the opinion that this should go for the new "Internet
> Standard" designation. That means running a new, 4-week, last call. I
> will initiate that tomorrow unless I hear yelps of horror from the WG.

Go for it!

There are a fair number of documents I think we'll be able to progress given
only two maturity levels. But given this is a new process, it would be much
better if the first document was one that was being processed for another,
preferably minor, reason. This document seems like the perfect candidate.

				Ned

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status