Re: [I2nsf] Working Group document adoption

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Tue, 12 January 2016 18:05 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE9281A01E7 for <i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:05:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 2txDhsxsIWLu for <i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:05:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E751E1A00EF for <i2nsf@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:05:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u0CI571q006188; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 18:05:07 GMT
Received: from 950129200 ([62.7.67.18]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u0CI54Fo006138 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 12 Jan 2016 18:05:06 GMT
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Susan Hares' <shares@ndzh.com>
References: <00bc01d14c7e$95eb9690$c1c2c3b0$@olddog.co.uk> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA6BEE4EDD@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <5D470630-C4D4-4C5D-990F-7BF3A1C887EA@telefonica.com> <014301d14d4b$40f6b110$c2e41330$@ndzh.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA6BEE5583@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <019e01d14d56$cb58b690$620a23b0$@ndzh.com>
In-Reply-To: <019e01d14d56$cb58b690$620a23b0$@ndzh.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 18:05:06 -0000
Message-ID: <015701d14d63$c5805cc0$50811640$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0158_01D14D63.C5836A00"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQIFmyK2oaL34DaaLPmC/crfuvYzVwJjtqzlAS1pBqACq1Xz/wHk5LJ/AdbkjSCeP82RAA==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.0.0.1202-22062.000
X-TM-AS-Result: No--12.788-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--12.788-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: pS5owHKhBO2UTHcBIlpNjXreh2bB7DO/+pkYmVlzZ8ulyfbzMrA/wniC e8dVoQXouMz+OM3vskXDGoi1ICzP7yVzLGWjApZWLGejGu8HEEsZskwWqoib3EX5hc8ioB2+xX7 kdqlj/8v0ayWxMWJlYJ/ujNnNM8HUGbTnRO3CTh0M+FbAnNWFvo19AQoYrNi9bcPp/oilssj0T3 Risbtv46i1hOlsUxzUGeocjSabTAhgXP2s4TkP48amcgjprEPz8wxV8JR3NqiabNoYojBQdm8CL gMrgefcqsCqqMPkcB9Q+JxF/iXS14qwLjqCNCzPkkRQ7aojOUvfVqwz+Cynace0H7LMCFcVwRq4 tsfhpBwOxu2s7fdNV4sWCfP6Gmv5dbSgks66AoGPVEZA4HZW+f0ZphLMH+yHol3uZzZ1GLegSjO tq5sfafHqAX4A3hCO4F7lBGYh+K8/Btxv8I1Q6XC8PJ2EFS7IIBcsXIuEvlbkZ1myTXKoF4/sYB BJ7n+doQNSkhkztQ7et/aEQRVJHkNKRRr2LbXrWCjDJRYeAZ0BL/XzNFFmHxS11FlOYRohT3bHV zoTp+QXlh2Nyyp8x7Rd0WwZSVdNNJyAyqAmcb92Gmf10eZIVnG1ZiUO5FCl+5+93dPb6/cZEIpX HlCzCdEzt6XnoBbPnuOhtEsGi0ZP5mzaUz6wQBD3+0w1DhqKRNv3k0/mfoi/xUIBoV49VgOkuVk kJKW7hFc9YFa1dsaKQiuuGSHzHyvCA9rhb2y8Ij0zFI5DoJJeCrB32KOS0H6cp973lFkJS/4a/2 DJkv/yzEFaT3dkzG5zP/FSQ4TNuwz3k5k2QyCeAiCmPx4NwGmRqNBHmBve1kTfEkyaZdy1VfZrX 9mxWAnHdsVbTOZ4t1wnj1H3TarAd6nwOGtiu/qffj0GIdeatVzSrkuIBHnmQLpeI0QJGlwOqrRY nUJCkh8CPZgKmSlVoUJx+FimIQ==
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/BuCXd0wSC7v__FWnB1UgFaAhREA>
Cc: i2nsf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Working Group document adoption
X-BeenThere: i2nsf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: "*I2NSF: Interface to Network Security Functions mailing list*" <i2nsf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/i2nsf>, <mailto:i2nsf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i2nsf/>
List-Post: <mailto:i2nsf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:i2nsf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf>, <mailto:i2nsf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 18:05:13 -0000

Hi Sue, 
 
No need to make work for yourself (unless you want to). None of the comments (so far) is so significant that it can't wait until after adoption.
 
So I suggest:
- let the poll complete
- adopt the docs
- make the updates
 
Adrian
 
From: I2nsf [mailto:i2nsf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: 12 January 2016 16:32
To: 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'; 'DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA'; i2nsf@ietf.org
Cc: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Working Group document adoption
 
Dan:
 
I agree that informational is the right status for these documents.  I will submit a revision with that change and addressing other comments on the list. 
 
Sue 
 
From: I2nsf [mailto:i2nsf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 10:17 AM
To: Susan Hares; 'DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA'; i2nsf@ietf.org
Cc: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Working Group document adoption
 
Well, the charter says:
 
Ø  This document will initially be produced for reference as a living list to track and record discussions: the working group may decide to not publish this document as an RFC.
 
So, the WG may decide to not publish or may decide to publish the documents (as they are two now). In the case we decide to publish, it seems to me that ‘Informational’ would be the right status. Let us set it ‘right’ then – it’s a different style of writing and a different approach in reviewing when we deal with Standards Track vs. Informational. If we do not publish it does not matter. 
 
Regards,
 
Dan
 
 
From: Susan Hares [mailto:shares@ndzh.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 5:09 PM
To: 'DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA'; i2nsf@ietf.org
Cc: adrian@olddog.co.uk; Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Subject: RE: [I2nsf] Working Group document adoption
 
I2NSF WG: 
 
As co-author, I support adoption of both drafts. 
 
On Dan’s point, my understanding from the charter is that both of these documents were going to be WG documents that would not be published as RFCs.  This way of handling these documents is just fine or going to informational document published by IESG is also fine.  Adrian and Linda indicate the purpose of these documents is to help speed along the creation of the framework, models, and other charter items. 
 
Sue