From jch@irif.fr Thu Feb 15 07:27:46 2024 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63193C14CF13; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 07:27:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.107 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=irif.fr Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lsXjsxmgdr4A; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 07:27:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DD65C14F6FC; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 07:27:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:1]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/82085) with ESMTP id 41FFRV7r016196 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 15 Feb 2024 16:27:31 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by potemkin.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay2/82085) with ESMTP id 41FFRVfs025928; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 16:27:31 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6ADEA075D; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 16:27:29 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=irif.fr; h= content-type:content-type:mime-version:user-agent:references :in-reply-to:subject:subject:from:from:message-id:date:date :received:received; s=dkim-irif; t=1708010847; x=1708874848; bh= 0lBAWO3EGZ99hRUzhPXM+RZiiIGruQuJbIPWSramrtw=; b=AiV/JPDzrWDzl0DV lYPchxt7DmbLuk66GbsxvMbgi/VVhigozPi6a0dkUFCCR8VGz0mWIa/1LqnT1wmN Nr7zWpuI7BEdWrsdgKHlE+2x6BgTJKSb4Z+KSItOt7SrWDFOBIdjZOqnOCaoL6y3 WdVn0am9ZZ5CSE0frQgEdY8NyzJjrAOCXmNzE5PBN8W9GXfO1eULUyDgqTAFZXmG OIMYvWJGt7nISRnkrb1QexebSv2SDqwT+asLCjsi4Lq/kXxQFf5HjUkaM5BeSM0H fT9da9eN0hcMjRie0vmNOcpbP1ZPyaLWk0D+KtcwdhVYpKz1OvbStskPC4SsRJsM VexkeQ== X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id XmA8TK9uHgtl; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 16:27:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from pirx.irif.fr (unknown [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 30C05A075A; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 16:27:25 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 16:27:25 +0100 Message-ID: <87sf1tu4rm.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: Warren Kumari Cc: "The IESG" , draft-ietf-babel-rtt-extension@ietf.org, babel-chairs@ietf.org, babel@ietf.org, Donald Eastlake In-Reply-To: <170796102570.42141.4171938216931566688@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <170796102570.42141.4171938216931566688@ietfa.amsl.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/29.1 Mule/6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]); Thu, 15 Feb 2024 16:27:31 +0100 (CET) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (potemkin.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.141]); Thu, 15 Feb 2024 16:27:31 +0100 (CET) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 65CE2D63.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-Miltered: at potemkin with ID 65CE2D63.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 65CE2D63.000 from potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/null/potemkin.univ-paris7.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 65CE2D63.000 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 65CE2D63.000 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 65CE2D63.000 on potemkin.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Subject: Re: [babel] Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-babel-rtt-extension-05: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 15:27:46 -0000 Hi Warren, > take heart and readeth > https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ , which > contains many words on handling ballots. For, as it sayeth upon the lid > of the tin: "A DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion"... Thanks for the encouragement. (As a side note, the document also says "ADs are careful and considered when balloting DISCUSS". It is not clear to me whether this statement is prescriptive or descriptive, and I'm not sure to what extent it matches the reality.) > One major concern of mine is that it says: "Updates: 8967 (if approved)" As mentioned in an earlier reply, this is a mistake. Sorry for that. > The shepherds writeup notes that this document is Standards Track because it > needs to update a Standards Track document, but no-where in the document does > it actually say **how** it updates RFC8967. Perhaps the header intended to say > that the documents updates RFC8966? Even if that is the case, the document > doesn't actually say **how** it updates it... The Abstract should say "This > document updates RFC896X by fooing the bar and twiddling the baz." (or similar) Fully agreed. I'll ask Donald for advice whether it should Update 8966 or not update anything. (My preference is the former.) -- Juliusz