IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Requirement for "obsoletes" in Abstracts

Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net> Sun, 05 February 2012 23:03 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 31BF921F8572 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Feb 2012 15:03:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 YRTTPWqq+dLf for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Feb 2012 15:03:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B3D921F855A for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Feb 2012 15:03:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (adsl-67-124-148-117.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.124.148.117]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q15N3Gt7030152 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Feb 2012 15:03:22 -0800
Message-ID: <4F2F0AB4.6010007@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 15:03:16 -0800
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org Discuss" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
References: <20120204001408.16716.94710.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CADBvc9_W9Jaca1TmV5QjyXupLVyLJh=6+334p-HM5pB=aKn15w@mail.gmail.com> <01OBKKTPYLIE00ZUIL@mauve.mrochek.com> <E63757FF71CD8B382B3832E7@PST.JCK.COM> <CAC4RtVAWkcLT8BjLafyZN+vLwNnrnc-xtQxUd24DZgGwdC3FDg@mail.gmail.com> <4F2EEAA1.7060706@dcrocker.net> <799720BC-AAEB-4270-BDF4-A24E83E5C553@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <799720BC-AAEB-4270-BDF4-A24E83E5C553@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Sun, 05 Feb 2012 15:03:22 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Requirement for "obsoletes" in Abstracts
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 23:03:23 -0000

> Although as John noted, this rule is actually from the IESG.


Existing documentation still has remnants of confusion about what is IETF stream 
policy versus, for example, overall RFC Editor policy.  These are items to 
reconcile as they are discovered.

I suppose the larger question for the IETF stream is whether its RFC-related 
policies should be set by the IESG or by the IETF...

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email