IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gen-art] [Last-Call] [ippm] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-20

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Mon, 09 December 2019 21:28 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F16A1200B3; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 13:28:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 9feZbeV1-v7N; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 13:28:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (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 9AEED1200F4; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 13:28:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id xB9LRonq022500 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 9 Dec 2019 16:27:52 -0500
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2019 13:27:49 -0800
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com>
Cc: "Roni Even (A)" <roni.even@huawei.com>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry.all@ietf.org>, "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20191209212749.GL13890@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <157233748615.6543.10822415025321392095@ietfa.amsl.com> <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CFA0B694BE@njmtexg5.research.att.com> <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD23D9EA85@dggemm526-mbx.china.huawei.com> <0FFC4378-9B11-4641-9544-4F960DDC624E@cooperw.in> <49AA5775-24F1-4BC1-AA5B-DB1EA9B863E1@kuehlewind.net> <CB75F33F-0DFF-4330-A7E0-F38603FCF866@cooperw.in> <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD27D24DB5@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com> <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CFA6F0673A@njmtexg5.research.att.com> <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD27D343ED@dggemm526-mbx.china.huawei.com> <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CFA6F090CE@njmtexg5.research.att.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CFA6F090CE@njmtexg5.research.att.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/JrXQIrngF0enX7331qYYLRxhh4E>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [Last-Call] [ippm] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-20
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 09 Dec 2019 21:28:02 -0000

On Mon, Dec 09, 2019 at 09:22:53PM +0000, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) wrote:
> Thanks Roni!
> 
> I'm glad you took this on, the long sets of comments/DISCUSS
> from Benjamin kept me very busy while I was flying 
> again - literally all day on Sunday to reach Kona, HI.
> You'll see those replies after I sort-out a few more
> details today, also Magnus' DISCUSS. It seemed as though
> whenever all DISCUSSes on a memo were cleared, someone
> pooped in a new DISCUSS to be sure that neither memo was 
> Approved, even something trivial. Benjamin entered his DISCUSS
> after the telechat!
> 
> Have you seen this with other memos?

It is quite unusual.
I only did it with the approval of the responsible AD, given that the
documents in question were added to the telechat agenda late, and pushing
the 'defer' button instead would have meant a two-week (or more!) delay.

-Ben

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email