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

Barry Leiba <> Wed, 26 October 2011 00:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6E0F1F0C57 for <>; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 17:44:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.915
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.915 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.062, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CbqSw29uTik8 for <>; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 17:44:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 209F11F0C4F for <>; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 17:44:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gyh20 with SMTP id 20so1225484gyh.31 for <>; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 17:44:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=eumkSctL+OZfiWW1lde1qjMO5KAudKsGz9dZxHOVcdo=; b=SKxx7BH8enlhR5QPFN1E2y6+wxLMXU5WTSGNeDCpS9/kPE63a7V9cV9p1BvvK8E9d5 o475a4t/jNdG+nZVE6NdTLEQVVFEfzKwcMoD9Ic9HeRqSLQ0qoa+SItfYGeZujn1i4w+ 0NcQa5e0hADXl3BFpKnn8KNGV++iKCkqotNa4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id h22mr5207388yai.0.1319589871640; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 17:44:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 17:44:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 20:44:31 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: WzKkfEnFGRrqo0bGyBJSfBjmHhQ
Message-ID: <>
From: Barry Leiba <>
To: Pete Resnick <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-02.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 00:44:32 -0000

> 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. If I do
> hear such yelps, you had better give me an argument to bring back to the
> IESG that I can defend.

I am mildly annoyed that this wasn't anticipated in the first last
call, and that we didn't just extend the last call for two weeks to
accommodate this, since RFC 6410 wasn't published when this doc was
processed before.  That said, this is a transition issue, and, as far
as I can tell, this is the *only* document that's affected.  And a
four-week delay in moving this forward will do no harm whatsoever.  I
agree with Russ's assessment that it's not a good idea to try to make
the first application of 6410 be an exception.

So, yes, let's do another four-week last call just on this point, and
then get this out as the first upgrade to Internet Standard.

Barry, document shepherd