IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] New appsawg documents

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Wed, 31 August 2011 17:14 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.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 D999C21F85B5 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 10:14:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.491
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.491 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.108, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 YJIgkYPLWVFJ for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 10:14:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15A4221F8AF6 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 10:14:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.124] ((unknown) [62.3.217.253]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <Tl5sWgBpJgFL@rufus.isode.com>; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 18:16:10 +0100
X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS
Message-ID: <4E5E6C61.1030503@isode.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 18:16:17 +0100
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
References: <CALaySJKw3zwR-Joxm8oBi8Y6b4E0zq5r5HbNGykDaotVTdGeXQ@mail.gmail.com><004001cc6736$d4baab40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net><CALaySJKkFht1k8Bux+d3jULBrzhwgx2uUu1fGX4TYVPewFKM5g@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJ+1NhpqEAMOkRpKT5OOsL4-Z+CG9VHYdOrLdVJkNbcR=A@mail.gmail.com> <008301cc67f8$43bb4b00$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
In-Reply-To: <008301cc67f8$43bb4b00$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] New appsawg documents
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, 31 Aug 2011 17:14:42 -0000

Hi Tom,

t.petch wrote:

>I want the process of producing an RFC to be challenging, to demonstrate
>that there is support for this as an RFC and that there has been adequate
>review. Asking for approval for seven I-Ds in three days does limit the
>likely review, and indeed, I see that one I-D has already progressed
>before even those three days are up, but I am not suggesting you extend it.
>Rather, I shall think again, perhaps at IETF Last Call, about the process
>and how it has served us.
>  
>
The bar for accepting documents as WG documents should be lower than the 
bar for saying that they are ready for IESG review. Rest assured that 
APPSAWG chairs are not going to initiate 7 WGLC at the very same moment.

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status