Re: [Dime] Another round of WGLCs and WG status

jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Tue, 25 May 2010 10:53 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31BCE3A6B0E for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 May 2010 03:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.100, BAYES_50=0.001]
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 6A+N7oPdotFg for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 May 2010 03:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F26513A6AF5 for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 May 2010 03:53:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwe15 with SMTP id 15so367337wwe.31 for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 May 2010 03:53:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:mime-version :content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=YOpIkyu4CbeuRwjU2bVxZ6KoOmE8UnHg5SYaSAAVz4c=; b=k7uGrXWFiEJ23DgFgZKtl568a8bgrTcdaT1hRelsiKUYtun9BlI1REc8Uc4/18Cqyb CzaNQLcb5sHqvy46+5F2tZOegqywt76kMMZo/eXIFhIjipV/E9qCtKwfdweRLBCaeeYp nT9NzsKvdjtrd/DlBTOPbNn1rBAp6xeIWH+I4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=lkTYAjKyA7UrTl4On3QXO/mviJACaZpIrpSiTqhHEOH2FFg/vsFjOjIEGWR3loFVTu 5T6MF9YMkhV/ZXLg/2Iwan3fnLXofPBAtyyCiOzdkuP2T9tvtiQx1DJbc3X8oBhEOBbu QGu8r/nFyuT7cRJ/f7fde0rsAl3Kf1wDHrw1A=
Received: by 10.227.141.135 with SMTP id m7mr6848360wbu.205.1274784786670; Tue, 25 May 2010 03:53:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.254.1.146] ([192.100.123.77]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u36sm38674190wbv.12.2010.05.25.03.53.03 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 25 May 2010 03:53:05 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <018301cafbee$4b648eb0$e22dac10$@net>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 13:52:59 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4871F3F3-EBF2-4233-8EDF-A688413CF128@gmail.com>
References: <10A80F70-2ED3-4A02-9711-7A5ED6C702D1@gmail.com> <0F3F1973-63CA-41E1-903A-35D3894D507D@gmail.com> <017301cafbce$09c10580$1d431080$@net> <1033CE87-B78F-4765-9F50-29FEDE6D03CE@gmail.com> <018301cafbee$4b648eb0$e22dac10$@net>
To: Glen Zorn <gwz@net-zen.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078)
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] Another round of WGLCs and WG status
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 10:53:20 -0000

On May 25, 2010, at 12:40 PM, Glen Zorn wrote:

> jouni korhonen [mailto:jouni.nospam@gmail.com] writes:
> 
>> On May 25, 2010, at 8:49 AM, Glen Zorn wrote:
>> 
>>> jouni korhonen [mailto://jouni.nospam@gmail.com] writes:
>>> 
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> We can conclude from the WGLC that local-keytran and also pririty-
>> avps
>>>> (though we got only 2 comments..) can move on. Authors, provide
>>>> revisions that addresses all comments on your documents and we'll
>> move
>>>> them forward.
>>> 
>>> It would be helpful if the chairs would provide a list of the accepted
>>> changes since (in the case of local-keytran, at least) not all
>> comments were
>>> valid.
>> 
>> We could hold your hand as well ;) 
> 
> The last time I checked, modifications to WG drafts were made by WG
> consensus _only_ & the responsibility for determining WG consensus was that
> of the WG Chairs, _not_ the document editor(s).  

Sure thing.. However, the only thing imho that really deviated from "how about - ok" discussion was the domain stuff and that was then specifically said to be left out.

> 
>> Anyway, seriously, I though to put
>> all stuff to tracker (just like RADEXT started to do) if folks would be
>> OK with that. 
> 
> It's a great idea, but only if you want to stop all progress (as the "tool"
> was used to great effect by the radext chairs).

Heh ;) That is what I am afraid off. Any other views? 

> 
>> It is a bit more spam on the list but would be rather
>> clear to follow each separate topic assuming folks would use it
>> systematically.
> 
> This includes you, of course: you still have to make clear which changes are
> OK & which are not.  Is it too much trouble to send an email stating the
> changes to be made?

Looking at the thread put into wiki..

o Frank Xia's review (1/3) and  Glen's response -> ok
   * I don't have a problem with an AVP occurrence table. Though, I would
     generalize the table to just Req & Rep 'general purpose commands' that
     are not actually tied to a specific command. Though such general purpose
     commands might need text saying they behave like DER/DEA etc..

o Joe Salowey's review (2/3) --
   * for domain that was agreed to be left out (as no one came up with
     a good use case).
   * rest of for Key types Joe provided text. Did not see objections to it.
   * Key-SPI stays.
   * others where text was proposed were acked as 'good' or 'ok' so
     those fly in.

o Tom Taylor's comments (3/3) --
  * comment 2 - up to the editor. I am ok with the current 5.2 content.

>> 
>> Regarding the local-keytran case, which part of the comments you refer
>> here? Domains?
> 
> All of them: the only comments I've seen on any of Joe's or Tom's comments
> have been mine.

After all these weeks we can conclude that the silence means acceptance for the comments/proposals above. Others seem to be fine with you three.

- Jouni


> 
>> 
>> - Jouni
>> 
>>> 
>>> ...
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
>