Re: [I2nsf] Working Group document adoption

"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Tue, 12 January 2016 15:16 UTC

Return-Path: <dromasca@avaya.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 F295F1B2AA1 for <i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 07:16:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] 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 B7avgIGBb311 for <i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 07:16:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 540681B2AA0 for <i2nsf@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 07:16:41 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A2AHAgCXF5VW/xUHmMZeGQEBAQEPAQEBAYI+IStSbQaIU7MhAQ2BZoYPAhyBCTgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhDQBAQEBAxIRCkwQAgEIDQEDBAEBCx0DAgICMBQJCAEBBAENBQgaiAwBpF2KXZAyAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGIZYhH2EVzaCZy6BGwWXEwGXF4U9jlMgAQFChApyhSkBgQcBAQE
X-IPAS-Result: A2AHAgCXF5VW/xUHmMZeGQEBAQEPAQEBAYI+IStSbQaIU7MhAQ2BZoYPAhyBCTgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhDQBAQEBAxIRCkwQAgEIDQEDBAEBCx0DAgICMBQJCAEBBAENBQgaiAwBpF2KXZAyAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGIZYhH2EVzaCZy6BGwWXEwGXF4U9jlMgAQFChApyhSkBgQcBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,558,1444708800"; d="scan'208,217";a="138214202"
Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest-exch.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.21]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 12 Jan 2016 10:16:38 -0500
X-OutboundMail_SMTP: 1
Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-FFEXHC02.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.58.12]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 12 Jan 2016 10:16:38 -0500
Received: from AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by AZ-FFEXHC02.global.avaya.com ([135.64.58.12]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:16:33 +0100
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, 'DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA' <diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com>, "i2nsf@ietf.org" <i2nsf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [I2nsf] Working Group document adoption
Thread-Index: AdFMfpIrlSnoJPdlT7SaF1vgplQ0mQApuhEwAAjxqID///MqgP//7j1w
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 15:16:32 +0000
Message-ID: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA6BEE5583@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.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>
In-Reply-To: <014301d14d4b$40f6b110$c2e41330$@ndzh.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.64.58.48]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA6BEE5583AZFFEXMB04globa_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/KtKKHOcpk2a_jJnfEFSkpXnKc4s>
Cc: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 15:16:44 -0000

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