Re: [bfcpbis] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-26: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 25 October 2018 06:50 UTC
Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE21B12D7EA; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 23:50:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.879
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.879 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 Lhsu_nguKe0A; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 23:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83FC812D4E6; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 23:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Svantevit.attlocal.net (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w9P6o4jt067741 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 25 Oct 2018 01:50:05 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Svantevit.attlocal.net
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@MIT.EDU>
Cc: mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com, bfcpbis@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis@ietf.org, bfcpbis-chairs@ietf.org
References: <154042672428.6988.18020634608915878362.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <37400FF7-D75F-4471-ADDB-1005AFA1B401@nostrum.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <6764e3b0-4533-cc6f-83f1-773879dc75c7@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 01:49:59 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <37400FF7-D75F-4471-ADDB-1005AFA1B401@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bfcpbis/CiU3VXTYcmGdAjUDbdZYbFTboAk>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-26: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list <bfcpbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bfcpbis>, <mailto:bfcpbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bfcpbis/>
List-Post: <mailto:bfcpbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bfcpbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis>, <mailto:bfcpbis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 06:50:09 -0000
On 10/24/18 9:36 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: > >> On Oct 24, 2018, at 7:18 PM, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@MIT.EDU> wrote: >> >> Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-26: Discuss >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >> introductory paragraph, however.) >> >> >> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> DISCUSS: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > [...] > >> We also had a very long discussion about the usage of the term "initial >> offer" in the context of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation; I do not >> propose to rehash that discussion, but want to ask whether we should stick >> to the established precedent with regard to the use of the term (which, >> IIUC, would involve a change to this document). >> > IIRC* subsequent discussion in MMUSIC decided that the important thing was to be clear on how you use the term. > > * It’s entirely possible I do not. i think that was during the power failure, and I may have been distracted :-) That matches my memory. /a
- [bfcpbis] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [bfcpbis] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-i… Ben Campbell
- Re: [bfcpbis] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-i… Adam Roach
- Re: [bfcpbis] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-i… Adam Roach
- Re: [bfcpbis] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-i… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [bfcpbis] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-i… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [bfcpbis] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-i… Christer Holmberg