IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Asrg] I-D Action: draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl-08.txt (fwd)

John Levine <asrg@johnlevine.com> Tue, 18 November 2008 23:31 UTC

Return-Path: <asrg-bounces@irtf.org>
X-Original-To: asrg-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-asrg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64C7D3A6887; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:31:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A66CE3A6920 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:31:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.447
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.347, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WESrpw6vKDK7 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:31:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [208.31.42.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7C6A3A6819 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:31:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 44565 invoked from network); 18 Nov 2008 23:31:08 -0000
Received: from mail1.iecc.com (208.31.42.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 18 Nov 2008 23:31:08 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=t1108; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=jhIhBTRbyiqC22yICoxI//vXWwVKvMEsg/xJA27JbwU=; b=qfk3hHVjL/FwbN6ZlpW69W8Tkp/VVCNMqQWD4tMlzMB/Iqzb9hUyABaSESNP2Kr2YtCsjw8vk39n0rGF6zVdxZ6LCctY+5ylamqK9VtqxFu6LN85XvNrsg3eUTkMrA6T
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:31:04 -0000
Message-ID: <20081118233104.51867.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
From: John Levine <asrg@johnlevine.com>
To: asrg@irtf.org
In-Reply-To: <49234385.3080306@nortel.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Asrg] I-D Action: draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl-08.txt (fwd)
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/pipermail/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: asrg-bounces@irtf.org
Errors-To: asrg-bounces@irtf.org

>> Re your other point, if it seems likely that the BCP-ish doc can come
>> out at the same time as the spec, I would of course adjust the reference
>> to it from the current vague language to be more specific.
>
>What's preventing the BCP-ish document coming out at the same time as
>the spec?

The IRTF process requires that a couple of the other RG chairs review
the docs for quality and wholesomeness, not to mention whether it
makes sense to someone from the outside.  If they have suggestions,
which they probably will, you respond to them.  (The RG suggestions
for my draft were entirely constructive.)

If we can get the necessary reviews, you should be OK.  There's an
IESG review, but that's supposed to be limited to seeing if it's an
attempted end run around a WG or other procedural shenanigans, not
whether they like what it says or not.

R's,
John
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email