IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gendispatch] Agenda items for gendispatch?

"Pete Resnick" <resnick@episteme.net> Fri, 28 February 2020 06:11 UTC

Return-Path: <resnick@episteme.net>
X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 015383A10EA; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 22:11:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 mWHkdjgvkMs2; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 22:11:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from episteme.net (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA4013A10E9; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 22:11:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73BD0A18D6A8; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 00:11:43 -0600 (CST)
Received: from episteme.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (episteme.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kKXdN5jbxnau; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 00:11:40 -0600 (CST)
Received: from [172.16.1.18] (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) by episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6BB82A18D69F; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 00:11:40 -0600 (CST)
From: Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Cc: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, gendispatch@ietf.org, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 00:11:39 -0600
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.1r5671)
Message-ID: <1255A773-3E8F-4F52-9734-AA5CA719C863@episteme.net>
In-Reply-To: <54F92D50B607699D65BD6239@PSB>
References: <ED3EB3D9-480E-4D58-8767-0B1B4202F6C0@episteme.net> <97866639-e9b5-89b8-ede2-b1abdc79fe5b@nostrum.com> <F2D8D859-724B-4313-88CB-921909FF33A9@episteme.net> <330A44632BE7ED6CC3287178@PSB> <123a6f60-7d9b-f26a-34e8-44c74d0db00d@nostrum.com> <54F92D50B607699D65BD6239@PSB>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/cj4lCTsZb0PrvuUEasSoXA89vQw>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] Agenda items for gendispatch?
X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <gendispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gendispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:gendispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 06:11:46 -0000

On 28 Feb 2020, at 0:09, John C Klensin wrote:

> I was just trying to suggest to
> Pete that, _if_ the IESG reaches some sort of conclusion and
> that conclusion were to include either agreement that there is
> an interaction or that the document action being appealed is
> about a problem that your document might lead us into more of,
> it might be wise to block out a bit more time for discussion
> than might otherwise be the case.

Taken under advisement. Our agenda is still pretty light, so we should 
have time to spare should this become an issue.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email