IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Sat, 25 May 2019 22:05 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.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 C57E3120099 for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 May 2019 15:05:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.711
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.711 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.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 OM25r0EhyQTw for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 May 2019 15:05:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89E3B12002F for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 May 2019 15:05:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0122330.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x4PLvvbn030446; Sat, 25 May 2019 23:05:19 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=Hbo5ymbwlCqfKAJAsrm2eHZRFsBUyoRomO88c9sY+1k=; b=Qrf3E+1E1uZV8ALhokeJjD/qyc5iJgFc3NOyQ/sH8aAi+6rNTYrFbYCyCNfOUOtHzGOK Eg4+bkairEWVkXLTw3qoEhGCiIUaBBTAkBvhT9Al9CHAFaMexsHS3hg3F7qyXFt7K9ta 0wtG/aF07cTX5dIEHobiarM7yOy1Mdjczl/KKJ8ThwJV0Ee5s6bhof9IoczL6zaoqcLV keNwVZ/tkGO6ZNhJUkLYhITUNe7Uw49bJEv7cXswsOUrxZArixGCG9fciB7JchCmecJf g+2IOX2S/vRUlANgveRZ7MNcRkzCYu3vhyHFd6bBbirVNIqVxKFaPcMfUW3stm2dHAG5 XQ==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint4 (prod-mail-ppoint4.akamai.com [96.6.114.87] (may be forged)) by mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2spwbtjkhp-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 25 May 2019 23:05:19 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint4.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint4.akamai.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x4PM2JMT018171; Sat, 25 May 2019 18:05:18 -0400
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.25.30]) by prod-mail-ppoint4.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2sq11va4p5-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 25 May 2019 18:05:18 -0400
Received: from USTX2EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.27.101) by ustx2ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.27.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Sat, 25 May 2019 17:05:18 -0500
Received: from USTX2EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.6.131]) by ustx2ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.6.131]) with mapi id 15.00.1473.003; Sat, 25 May 2019 17:05:18 -0500
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, "eligibility-discuss@ietf.org" <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Eligibility-discuss] Virtual BoF for draft-moonesamy-recall-rev
Thread-Index: AQHVE0O3Sx0kZ81tPUKiud6DSOfFE6Z8dhuA
Date: Sat, 25 May 2019 22:05:17 +0000
Message-ID: <FDDEFD82-E276-4874-896E-490397EDA735@akamai.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20190525144314.0e72bb68@elandnews.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20190525144314.0e72bb68@elandnews.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.19.0.190512
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.19.33.35]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <C48D20937ACADA4DB729F063BCC8107A@akamai.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-05-25_16:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=626 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1905250154
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-05-25_16:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=639 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1905250154
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eligibility-discuss/MQm4MwgcpvoUoozO-iDOganHLNc>
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 22:05:50 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email