IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art telechat review: draft-mcdonald-ipps-uri-scheme-17

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Tue, 02 December 2014 17:20 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6DA21A1EF0; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 09:20:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 g9iqrW4mlOYB; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 09:20:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qg0-x22e.google.com (mail-qg0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF34B1A1AE6; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 09:20:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id z107so9484991qgd.19 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 02 Dec 2014 09:20:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=bj5cf+Rp5eNu1l+xuToxcc0t7oxbrxBzcpYycCMRrgg=; b=ZhvBZmU1PDkRnFj6csPKuRVJ6q/yilgu3lS7/DzAqMlIIj6vLzVsVXkzOU3am2HNrl A0p02HSgAt4Z83yWeA5xJ7UIRypv8StQDHcMJtIp67eZ08NjwDhttuMIO1Kkcs0ofOEi nHay5CzJC74ACRKwTyM1/UxnZ1rjiu0DqAOfJGoeu36O6a75q9O1kC4r8ImVOSe9MIH9 OocRUDPRhqFLxWAuvsn7M+1aCOwCVEDQLwu7YH1J4ysem7pwbg4GOMSNm9dhvT6LGgKS H7b5QGNcc/wyEj5k8yW0JEzwVZ9Xd4AvG2e/uOw9AEKXbIXnXuj0eQXPQAFjErC29VZ/ sovw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.101.100 with SMTP id ff4mr316529lbb.94.1417540820992; Tue, 02 Dec 2014 09:20:20 -0800 (PST)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.152.127.168 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 09:20:20 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <547DF327.6040803@nostrum.com>
References: <546FB4E7.7060704@nostrum.com> <547DE944.9000709@nostrum.com> <CALaySJ+gpLBcVCF_kwbPf4MkQr_8nm5KsZaHXH_FDCaZFF7=Og@mail.gmail.com> <547DF327.6040803@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:20:20 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: hdAUrtsOljlbY27h8_ZnDtrUrT4
Message-ID: <CALaySJ+Kc_7siz8EGefJ+bR9d1ztwPvbwR7AA55e9v6Mx550ng@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/H40jexnCsbhb0rdp-XIfXWj7G48
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, draft-mcdonald-ipps-uri-scheme.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art telechat review: draft-mcdonald-ipps-uri-scheme-17
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 17:20:23 -0000

>> When you suggest saying more, are you suggesting saying more in the
>> document?
>
> I mostly meant the writeup - I expect there will be IESG folks with the same
> questions I had.

I can do that, sure.

>    This document updates:
>     ...
>    c) IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP Version 2.0 Second Edition [PWG5100.12], by
>       extending section 4 'IPP Standards' and section 10 'Security
>       Considerations'.
>
> This RFC-to-be is updating an IEEE-ISTO PWG document, and that seems
> exceptional enough to warrant mention about how the organizations
> are coordinating that update.

I'd think that's for PWG to address on their side, no?  If they accept
that they can have an IETF RFC formally updating one of their
documents, that's their process, not ours, no?

Barry

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email