IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [art] Against BCP 190

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Tue, 23 July 2019 10:15 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17CBF1201A2 for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 03:15:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.697
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=opendkim.org header.b=bOKWFl6p; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=uAE8WHbH
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 SZA9MGekD2-w for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 03:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7B6012019F for <art@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 03:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.115.189.201]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x6NAF1iY004940 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 23 Jul 2019 03:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1563876914; x=1563963314; bh=pUFCqFiGo0yEbdmR5pIMF24MdX5Tadlipt3pqKLOtKc=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=bOKWFl6pwZ03tCePCBAs2nuXLHjjowFpuO+auwrU2ZjUa4gjUABx9cXI36BC+yg4E O4chr4Vs3f36EK1mviJjdmGU7wgrICrXJIfqI1ragEq5UejcrLMALvKB6zK+2uyEB3 A0xtb1zpsqDR7kp94r8X2Zkd5mAikUYssyUQxdXA=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1563876914; x=1563963314; i=@elandsys.com; bh=pUFCqFiGo0yEbdmR5pIMF24MdX5Tadlipt3pqKLOtKc=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=uAE8WHbH9OITg9NVQHGwZq8bM3jJLeq0phEnjwO3q7AXTv7RpTyUcinsJznkaBKvx Is1xlcLRu/+WXlj8T8VmNtc54gCYBdDCIlUcABP4agp7Z98xkjvkQwVj42rgrO1Cpt NChOUAKA+gaJPNtbJMkmfrCkjWnPs2w2aQS0D5LI=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20190723025131.0bdbacf8@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 03:14:05 -0700
To: masinter@gmail.com, art@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Cc: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <008901d5410d$90607b00$b1217100$@gmail.com>
References: <791b33b8-4696-f69c-aca3-8838b2caafd8@sectigo.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20190713054207.0bbd9b58@elandnews.com> <008901d5410d$90607b00$b1217100$@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/NC4I5NaFOpz1TBGogd0ohqY_JcQ>
Subject: Re: [art] Against BCP 190
X-BeenThere: art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/art/>
List-Post: <mailto:art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 10:15:18 -0000

Hi Larry,
At 09:17 PM 22-07-2019, masinter@gmail.com wrote:
>I don't understand
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis/ballot/
>5 DISCUSS on a document targeted to be Experimental where most of the
>objections don't seem to meet the criteria for raising a DISCUSS on 
>a standards-track
>document.

The TRANS Working Group set a milestone for December 2015.  After 
four years, the work item for that is still not in accordance with 
the Working Group Charter [1], i.e. standards-track.  I suggest 
reading the Document Shepherd write-up.

I would like to thank Henry for reminding me about the BCP 56 
update.  I was trying to remember where this case may fit; it might 
be "substrate".

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/trans/about/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email