Re: [dtn] Core drafts returning to IESG

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

As I have gotten the question:

If you look at page with IESG ballot position, it might appear that there are
two discusses on BPbis:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis/ballot/

However, any position where the AD name is within parenthis that ballot position
doesn't count anymore and is only kept for record. 

Cheers

Magnus



On Mon, 2020-11-02 at 09:17 +0000, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I have now requested that BPbis, BPsec and TCPclv4 are put on the telechat
> agenda for the 3rd of December as returning items. As the documents currently
> only have 8 ballot positions we need the rest of the IESG to ballot on the
> document so we meet the required for approval. My judgment is that two
> discusses
> are likely resolved but not cleared yet. There might still be minor fixes due
> to
> these or due to new comments and discusses. I hope these will be easy to
> resolve. 
> 
> I want to be clear that this is not to preempt any discussion the WG want to
> have over the latest changes in the document. I do note that the directions
> for
> this have been expressed on the mailing list. So I think it is primarily a
> question of how they have been written. 
> 
> I would recommend that people do take a look at Ben's discsuss on TCPclv4 and
> what the current text says in TCPclv4 as it does impact what security
> properties
> that are achived. 
> 
> Secondly, BPbis now indicates that new registrations are Specification
> required
> with an expert review for reasonable assignment. My question to the WG is if
> anyone thinks we should have more concrete recommendations to the Expert on
> what
> is acceptable or not. 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Magnus
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dtn mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn