Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Tue, 03 September 2019 04:06 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD8B71200EC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 21:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.679
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.679 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
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 xoQL0YDZYJec for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 21:06:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 AF4941200E6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 21:06:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Svantevit.local (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x8346Qun092261 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 2 Sep 2019 23:06:27 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1567483588; bh=4ZbMLdGRo+q/2G9B27mYHKhcNuURGxmV6jiv8RnHjzY=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=XYaOFakqKSq5rBfquYpxteuu++HNMSF6xhB1dwQBXiJ+6Hy2+il5zRCI1KtAoOBNl 3dzMcUpGbUIsUKHAlHZa6BEBn28ReaQ1wt0563+hdjYNnJAuKhzt4EGp1oDrSxMDnk Y9dBzVEKY5TLXWXGZJ9UHwXDzrleNHAnFdDFGBr4=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Svantevit.local
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period
To: Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org, ietf@ietf.org
References: <061D2F46-71C3-4260-B203-73B07EB59418@encrypted.net> <5B276430-96A9-44EA-929B-B9C2325AFCA5@encrypted.net> <f9be9982-56f5-bdcc-3b09-13080532ffc5@comcast.net> <D7B6334A-A4EF-4386-905F-86C187E22899@encrypted.net> <00237fc1-e378-322d-87d7-8e6f27907f2a@nthpermutation.com> <17ed6d9f-94b9-ad41-de64-28e4f982d2c9@nostrum.com> <2ac05112-d2e3-5459-d2be-a115b7df935a@nthpermutation.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <54f99685-d33c-7d9d-3a08-f37ff9e3e502@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 23:06:21 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2ac05112-d2e3-5459-d2be-a115b7df935a@nthpermutation.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-vTVnR290oV1Isov6UMPFiuBQkI>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2019 04:06:31 -0000

On 9/2/19 10:17 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
> Someone has to be willing to take and manage the commentary - if not 
> Sarah, then who?    (I don't really care who - I just want to know who 
> gets to decide what goes into the next version and how I affect that 
> decision). 


The RSOC -- each and every one of us -- are carefully reading everything 
sent to rsoc@iab.org, and all comments sent there will be given 
significant consideration when revising the SOW. I presume that most or 
all of us are also reading the input on both ietf@ietf.org and 
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org, although I can't actually speak for the 
other members. In any case, the input you're providing right now is 
exactly how you affect that decision. I really appreciate the specific 
and concrete suggestions you've made so far, as that kind of feedback is 
much easier to incorporate than more generalized objections.

To be clear, the SOW under consideration incorporates significant text 
from the SOW used during the previous several bid processes, and has so 
far been edited by three of us as part of trying to get it into 
reasonable shape for this upcoming bid. So it's fair to say that we are 
likely to jointly manage the commentary.

/a