IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] AD sponsoring draft-masotta-tftpexts-windowsize-opt-09

<l.wood@surrey.ac.uk> Tue, 18 March 2014 22:02 UTC

Return-Path: <l.wood@surrey.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 944161A040E; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 15:02:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vFEo6IANiZ2C; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 15:02:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1.bemta5.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta5.messagelabs.com [195.245.231.143]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C516B1A030F; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 15:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [195.245.231.67:34481] by server-7.bemta-5.messagelabs.com id 37/3A-20531-F42C8235; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 22:01:51 +0000
X-Env-Sender: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk
X-Msg-Ref: server-9.tower-82.messagelabs.com!1395180111!25353924!1
X-Originating-IP: [131.227.200.43]
X-StarScan-Received:
X-StarScan-Version: 6.11.1; banners=-,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 8523 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2014 22:01:51 -0000
Received: from exht022p.surrey.ac.uk (HELO EXHT022P.surrey.ac.uk) (131.227.200.43) by server-9.tower-82.messagelabs.com with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 18 Mar 2014 22:01:51 -0000
Received: from EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk ([169.254.1.204]) by EXHT022P.surrey.ac.uk ([131.227.200.43]) with mapi; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 22:01:50 +0000
From: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk
To: barryleiba@computer.org, touch@isi.edu
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 22:01:48 +0000
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] AD sponsoring draft-masotta-tftpexts-windowsize-opt-09
Thread-Index: Ac9C1tc9Yey5MHVgQ16YGIenv3iJ4gAHW9f/
Message-ID: <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F1240847E6334792@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
References: <53222FC1.7040009@bogus.com> <532367CA.4080807@isi.edu> <53247DCD.40002@bogus.com> <53249F15.7010802@isi.edu> <0f9fb6b8c92609346c3a4111f2c31349.squirrel@www.erg.abdn.ac.uk> <532870D8.4090106@bogus.com> <53288174.6050209@isi.edu>, <CAC4RtVCnHd6UPDChmu+ge_LV+FD9RyAjkbTtjeMWXd2=hZAT2A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVCnHd6UPDChmu+ge_LV+FD9RyAjkbTtjeMWXd2=hZAT2A@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/hAvyRPuwpRxXJ3x_2UZoh5WWp14
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 10:41:41 -0700
Cc: tsv-area@ietf.org, apps-discuss@ietf.org, martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] AD sponsoring draft-masotta-tftpexts-windowsize-opt-09
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 18 Mar 2014 22:02:03 -0000

> 3. I believe it is *not* right to say that the document cannot go
> forward unless &WG accepts it as a working group product.  If they do,
> that's very nice.  If they reject it because of fundamental flaws that
> have not been adequately addressed, then loop back to #2.  But if they
> simply don't want it, that isn't a valid reason to stop the document
> from progressing.

If it's a standalone document, publishing without going through a working group
is perfectly valid.

But this modifies a standards track protocol, and would be published as
standards track. The bar is higher.

Having said that, I think the draft is silly, the appeal was silly, AD
sponsorship is silly. Limited TSVWG resources are better spent elsewhere.


Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: tsv-area [tsv-area-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba [barryleiba@computer.org]
Sent: 18 March 2014 18:18
To: Joe Touch
Cc: joel jaeggli; tsv-area@ietf.org; apps-discuss@ietf.org; Martin Stiemerling
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] AD sponsoring draft-masotta-tftpexts-windowsize-opt-09

Just one bit here that Joel has touched on, but that I want to say clearly:

> The authors need to make the case to the TSVWG (?) that this needs to become
> a WG doc, and then we can all scrutinize/optimize it in public.

1. It's absolutely right to say that &WG (be that TSVWG or any other)
needs to review a document that's being put forth for IETF consensus.

2. It's absolutely right to say that the comments that result from
that review need to be addressed.

3. I believe it is *not* right to say that the document cannot go
forward unless &WG accepts it as a working group product.  If they do,
that's very nice.  If they reject it because of fundamental flaws that
have not been adequately addressed, then loop back to #2.  But if they
simply don't want it, that isn't a valid reason to stop the document
from progressing.

I think we're likely in agreement on this, but, as I say, I want to
put it out there clearly.

Barry

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email