IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] New appsawg documents

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Tue, 30 August 2011 18:14 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 4EFC721F8E35 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:14:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.612
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.612 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.013, 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 vrBm+Ch7ofYg for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:14:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8232A21F8E33 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:14:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-178.cisco.com (unknown [64.101.72.178]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1921B4174A; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:18:20 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4E5D28D0.1030905@stpeter.im>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:15:44 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
References: <CALaySJKw3zwR-Joxm8oBi8Y6b4E0zq5r5HbNGykDaotVTdGeXQ@mail.gmail.com> <004001cc6736$d4baab40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <CALaySJKkFht1k8Bux+d3jULBrzhwgx2uUu1fGX4TYVPewFKM5g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJKkFht1k8Bux+d3jULBrzhwgx2uUu1fGX4TYVPewFKM5g@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.1
OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
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: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 18:14:18 -0000

<hat type='AD'/>

On 8/30/11 12:13 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> At least two of these seem to be progressing nicely without any
>> adoption by appsawg, so adopting them seems to be a way of making
>> work.
>>
>> Do the authors want them adopted (I have seen no requests)?
>>
>> If not, who does?
> 
> The Area Directors, who would otherwise have to decide whether to
> sponsor them.  Remember that Standards Track documents have to go
> through the IESG, and someone has to manage the process.  In part,
> that's why appsawg exists.

It's also easier for us to declare consensus on WG documents than on
individual drafts.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

v2.34.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status