IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Virtual BoF for draft-moonesamy-recall-rev

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Sat, 25 May 2019 22:35 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 4FBA812011D for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 May 2019 15:35:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=opendkim.org header.b=ONl/AM74; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=EYSd1Fk4
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 r9gnZA7aloSV for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 May 2019 15:35:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55083120115 for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 May 2019 15:35:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([197.226.49.188]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x4PMZBVC019283 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 25 May 2019 15:35:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1558823723; x=1558910123; bh=wuqkz3BBXy0GaNkZyDVA++5Ty49IkITBpcQCa1+qcyA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=ONl/AM74ssxO2W2+CZ0NQBql+KPKTqcN6qYzX1EGjFdF7nwoRxPPhmaVvHORkKBIf +lbPIM19TDm4H6JymZ2AF/sU/RBzjkPCSNiSiIe6MakmJGbH3VlIf6vaFhZ/WKiL/G dRiF/lUlquZX99B4ddgaeEJAvhcaFYVG0a9eAYaM=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1558823723; x=1558910123; i=@elandsys.com; bh=wuqkz3BBXy0GaNkZyDVA++5Ty49IkITBpcQCa1+qcyA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=EYSd1Fk4P1WkrHhQvPykieGBT1hHko7puH6v6Ne/iTTRczfboNCE7hD+FfIHmUqMm FjoiQ+ZhhMpJQqcMIuUVyN9zFZ3HKVxj22jdkp64jfQXMXw+Jh38puu95e7GrKD1Ua Y2k1Tc97g+vHWBlSdMPexQFdDXRrCrbP/GQA4OOU=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20190525151934.0c0099e0@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sat, 25 May 2019 15:34:21 -0700
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <FDDEFD82-E276-4874-896E-490397EDA735@akamai.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20190525144314.0e72bb68@elandnews.com> <FDDEFD82-E276-4874-896E-490397EDA735@akamai.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eligibility-discuss/7yQO1_UvwNz22MaOeAtg-ILK5xM>
Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Virtual BoF for draft-moonesamy-recall-rev
X-BeenThere: eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <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, 25 May 2019 22:35:27 -0000

Hi Rich,
At 03:05 PM 25-05-2019, Salz, Rich wrote:
>        The current description of the process for handling recalls of
>        NomCom-appointed roles is described in RFC 7437 and is being 
> updated in
>        draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis.  ...
>
>
>So why is your draft not appropriate to be discussed as part of the 
>7437bis document?

If I am not mistaken, the Responsible Area Director for IASA2 
determined that drafts which go beyond cosmetic updates are out of 
scope for that working group.

>If your draft becomes an RFC at some point, do you expect it to say 
>"updates 7437bis" ?

Please see the first page of the draft.  It has an "Updates: 7437 (if 
approved)".  It is expected to update 7437bis if there is approval for that.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email