Re: [I2nsf] Working Group document adoption

"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Tue, 12 January 2016 20:07 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.com>
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 367001A8844 for <i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 12:07:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -96.257
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.257 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 qEWus7yNNgHQ for <i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 12:07:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (unknown [50.245.122.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5AF71A8843 for <i2nsf@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 12:07:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=74.43.47.177;
From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
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> <015701d14d63$c5805cc0$50811640$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <015701d14d63$c5805cc0$50811640$@olddog.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 15:07:25 -0500
Message-ID: <026a01d14d74$dc9432e0$95bc98a0$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_026B_01D14D4A.F3BFB180"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQIFmyK2oaL34DaaLPmC/crfuvYzVwJjtqzlAS1pBqACq1Xz/wHk5LJ/AdbkjSACDMmT554vivRQ
Content-Language: en-us
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/KSCaI6SF1aaEvQhAZsiFCnPyRGA>
Cc: i2nsf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Working Group document adoption
X-BeenThere: i2nsf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
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 20:07:31 -0000

Adrian: 

 

Thank you for the information.  I’ll collect the rest of the comments.  By the way, I have no knowledge of IPR on either draft. 

 

Sue 

 

From: I2nsf [mailto:i2nsf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 1:05 PM
To: 'Susan Hares'
Cc: i2nsf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Working Group document adoption

 

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