IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Dots] merging requirements and use cases drafts?

"Mortensen, Andrew" <amortensen@arbor.net> Mon, 27 February 2017 18:42 UTC

Return-Path: <amortensen@arbor.net>
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C87A12A2D3 for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 10:42:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=thescout.onmicrosoft.com
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 TBUa9w3l0t7c for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 10:42:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from NAM02-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-sn1nam02on0110.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.36.110]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A93DC12A2D6 for <dots@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 10:42:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=thescout.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-arbor-net; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=Tz5W0vLLK+jSd0WuPFVsxQza3/dTrRzXDZmI71OI38g=; b=G4UYSQWqU82zMu5c3sK+kvxdVIrwMIEBTKkvmPI5sPROfYfmwIFpT2sJ5XqJyX5E28+8r5K5CfBw+UIenu/2l89tqM21YYDSh+Je4Eawbdr7l42nHhzjOxoIbgfXeu8o2M9mer9tK0l5ylO2NaKHM0O6tenmdX+vGOBx5zJczCI=
Received: from MWHPR0101MB3118.prod.exchangelabs.com (10.174.167.145) by MWHPR0101MB3117.prod.exchangelabs.com (10.174.166.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.933.12; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 18:42:43 +0000
Received: from MWHPR0101MB3118.prod.exchangelabs.com ([10.174.167.145]) by MWHPR0101MB3118.prod.exchangelabs.com ([10.174.167.145]) with mapi id 15.01.0933.019; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 18:42:43 +0000
From: "Mortensen, Andrew" <amortensen@arbor.net>
To: "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: merging requirements and use cases drafts?
Thread-Index: AQHSkSlHPjfCqL/HTUaPO9bSB5JdCA==
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 18:42:43 +0000
Message-ID: <CE7B264D-CAC1-41DF-8650-702E120BFBF9@arbor.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=amortensen@arbor.net;
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: [216.130.192.3]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 40ac5ba4-71db-4d15-a370-08d45f406a55
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001); SRVR:MWHPR0101MB3117;
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; MWHPR0101MB3117; 7:5lSUmsGXoySbYlQNIFavyg71JH/LzMwrVJrihgdAOESZhm+sTadvX/UKhimxnRWlNMlcq5pFw/caHsTU0JvTZTBaZJq7ZKPgoq4BtwXD5/RQ5ZYJMs+NZcV9/pOkhMoiXwmN7NUGKmte+fhkbHyrwHsHqQhDbi8ixp4vQrGx4/kvnNkGk7/bTnzt9rTsKGOVszJ4f19tkgf7jxf19SEJ3JMHE15BMQrg+S3vvV3yNEgPjYtexYRh/y7O7IjxEYP+A1eltk+e/b3GPdFu0pUacTpXtlLSFt0OEZtBQxxpGl04UnbnBHoKChHdf0fSpU06I/VGDIe6DxQLfz5BKZxZ8g==
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MWHPR0101MB311784F1CF45869939441386D1570@MWHPR0101MB3117.prod.exchangelabs.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040375)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046)(6041248)(20161123558025)(20161123564025)(20161123562025)(20161123555025)(20161123560025)(6072148); SRVR:MWHPR0101MB3117; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:MWHPR0101MB3117;
x-forefront-prvs: 02318D10FB
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(39450400003)(199003)(189002)(77096006)(6486002)(66066001)(81156014)(6506006)(8676002)(1730700003)(305945005)(81166006)(8936002)(6436002)(3660700001)(25786008)(5640700003)(3280700002)(450100001)(82746002)(2906002)(99286003)(102836003)(6116002)(3846002)(7736002)(6512007)(83716003)(68736007)(189998001)(122556002)(38730400002)(110136004)(50986999)(97736004)(54356999)(92566002)(2501003)(101416001)(6916009)(53936002)(106116001)(105586002)(106356001)(36756003)(5660300001)(2900100001)(86362001)(2351001)(33656002)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:MWHPR0101MB3117; H:MWHPR0101MB3118.prod.exchangelabs.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: arbor.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <C0A4AB34D250FE4E9F63021569739689@prod.exchangelabs.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: arbor.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 27 Feb 2017 18:42:43.0750 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 54f11205-d4aa-4809-bd36-0b542199c5b2
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MWHPR0101MB3117
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/l0phQdpmSc4j6XhfxUyx-lrrDzk>
Subject: [Dots] merging requirements and use cases drafts?
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." <dots.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dots>, <mailto:dots-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dots/>
List-Post: <mailto:dots@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dots-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots>, <mailto:dots-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 18:42:46 -0000

During the interim meeting, Kathleen Moriarty observed that it might be beneficial to merge the requirements and use cases drafts, since the IESG tends to look more favorably on such drafts.

We did not continue that discussion during the interim meeting, due to limited time, but I think it’s something we need to discuss ahead of the meeting in Chicago. To begin with, I’d like to hear a little more from Kathleen about why a merged draft is likely to be more palatable to the IESG. If nothing else, it’d be nice to avoid coming to the topic cold in Chicago.

andrew

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email