IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Eligibility-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-elegy-rfc8989bis-00.txt

Luc André Burdet <laburdet.ietf@gmail.com> Sat, 17 September 2022 04:35 UTC

Return-Path: <laburdet.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91DC6C15257E for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Sep 2022 21:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 9DWGkibGMkAM for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Sep 2022 21:35:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x12f.google.com (mail-il1-x12f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12f]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4B85C15257C for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Sep 2022 21:34:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x12f.google.com with SMTP id s11so12324308ilt.7 for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Sep 2022 21:34:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:content-language:accept-language:in-reply-to :references:message-id:date:thread-index:thread-topic:subject:cc:to :from:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=uJ1xyVfnvYmeZsIuc3fgTjozCn/bYGjUQTc0qXqqlfE=; b=f08vE1O4phhEMOYJ2wY9gC0qc3ljikpt7k9w3V30yEn/Hz+i0HBrDkT3rxcZ+yF/zE bY/BG49wxHc3dHnIS4W6rj4V61utAR46/sQJMXKiMr3vHSnImj6QZgB2jg01pIAndaF1 g1gl2jt9XRlYY2+yjLOQjWYeffm++6x11rOONxm7eJsp8mPV7XgDdCtYPV4wCBMz7zCf 3iHxQE9tXDiVrPOz313W2in9DTzQpgLfLgfabPLQl8gA8XYXaqFSXPA3J451H8p3C7CZ m+/5WPgg1mXvVdg32E/e/otr5K7EzhebOTrqOs8u5bfhVp3ZLKKQcpxW2ep/WuhCSDJe yZ9g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=mime-version:content-language:accept-language:in-reply-to :references:message-id:date:thread-index:thread-topic:subject:cc:to :from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=uJ1xyVfnvYmeZsIuc3fgTjozCn/bYGjUQTc0qXqqlfE=; b=Q7Kx8DaZYK15JvAd0xPgu1m2ctEc4SjTV5TVwTETjmeMoBbliCwuPeKWiAr716eIjI aTNT8Sp/+6WCGcgw2ViLWt3QGzaEFRMXQy2G95ZlzLP05BsnrON7O4ai5MYKLSbHMrb3 TeAz25AYxVntxfTqQKrLRR8y+OxoyYFTn48VfGsVNwVUUVDe5pmLfMcwZheD0cOdZQzy gOEAMmFb+9pKet+hK8VGLwnQjU089QIYEiEkCjbBNS2jbxdjB5tuIKyQopH7mATMiF3D U/5fg64WQwehFUfeuXDsXEtGmH/H3Uz37X7WzUG9Y+/YUjrWdFISusNL2oaRvxxF3gXR mAWA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf1eErghQS5Og7m8F8D8Onn95T4V6MJy3wHISUtVCLGjM4fKLZkT pKvuPO3UvABqGYcN2K4szwA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM4yT0kyg7l4jO/S0ep6JAA6XvP5hCAdO+sR0BEpQyIXZ54wWxl5cizMnap/CJG5HjdlPd6JiQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:1c4a:b0:2ed:c3de:c7c7 with SMTP id d10-20020a056e021c4a00b002edc3dec7c7mr3641755ilg.261.1663389247909; Fri, 16 Sep 2022 21:34:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DM8P221MB0454.NAMP221.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([2603:1036:301:2847::5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f21-20020a05660215d500b006881f702ef9sm11593251iow.14.2022.09.16.21.34.07 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 16 Sep 2022 21:34:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Luc André Burdet <laburdet.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
CC: "eligibility-discuss@ietf.org" <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Eligibility-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-elegy-rfc8989bis-00.txt
Thread-Index: ATk1OTE3ABu2wjw8YJGRYh6figQzPr8p2ZuGgAAxBICAAAMCE4AAGe6AgAAAx5A=
X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2022 04:34:06 +0000
Message-ID: <DM8P221MB045491050F3E377052B95EE0AF4B9@DM8P221MB0454.NAMP221.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <166335488274.56431.15608923653857442099@ietfa.amsl.com> <DM8P221MB0454BF49F2C7E654FEA6B2FAAF489@DM8P221MB0454.NAMP221.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CALaySJ+cbmwCuYgUc=ELOWJxgHADQanndTPxQ+uXkfdWWS7Z4Q@mail.gmail.com> <DM8P221MB0454F2D25E4AAF244B82284CAF4B9@DM8P221MB0454.NAMP221.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CALaySJ+uwbTYSDJ7w8mDFZ+-tnf=_Mm0pqx_spJVLi21_FZAWA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJ+uwbTYSDJ7w8mDFZ+-tnf=_Mm0pqx_spJVLi21_FZAWA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-CA
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SCL: -1
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-RecordReviewCfmType: 0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DM8P221MB045491050F3E377052B95EE0AF4B9DM8P221MB0454NAMP_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eligibility-discuss/2M5qL60HMBgOT8AGEkmQNPYexUU>
Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-elegy-rfc8989bis-00.txt
X-BeenThere: eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF eligibility procedures <eligibility-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/eligibility-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2022 04:35:16 -0000

Ok.

I think at *least* refer to which part of the prose is a problem. The paragraph following all this refers to “traditional interpretation of the requirement“
“the” ?  The prose has just listed 3 and the requirement “the” refers to is not even the last mentioned it’s 2-requirements up.

The virtual meetings didn’t cause issues with 2-per-affiliation nor with the IESG-etc ineligibility.
You may find the backpointer self-evident because of IETF experience, but I don’t (on both counts).

where the traditional
   interpretation of the requirement for attendance to in-person meetings would have resulted in no eligible
   volunteers.

Regards,
Luc André
Luc André Burdet |  Cisco  |  laburdet.ietf@gmail.com  |  Tel: +1 613 254 4814


From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Saturday, September 17, 2022 at 00:21
To: Luc André Burdet <laburdet.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: eligibility-discuss@ietf.org <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-elegy-rfc8989bis-00.txt
> Are you asking Martin to actually remove R1 and R3 sentences?

No: I think the prose that's there is fine for background.  I think
that calling them out the way you suggest is putting it in a light
that makes it looks like it's part of the work that we're doing, and
I'd prefer not to do that.

Barry

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status