IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Tue, 01 September 2009 07:43 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07A9328C43D; Tue, 1 Sep 2009 00:43:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.729
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.729 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.130, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FgDTE0fx5gBV; Tue, 1 Sep 2009 00:43:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 511D928C529; Tue, 1 Sep 2009 00:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00398D62D8; Tue, 1 Sep 2009 10:43:24 +0300 (EEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Sh4HeR8LQB-b; Tue, 1 Sep 2009 10:43:23 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B7B5D623E; Tue, 1 Sep 2009 10:43:23 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <4A9CD09A.4090303@piuha.net>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 10:43:22 +0300
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Subject: Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes
References: <C6C174ED.18F7E%br@brianrosen.net> <C3564ADC-4C35-4442-A555-A8E27C32B76F@estacado.net> <4A9C11EC.8010709@joelhalpern.com> <4A9C147D.8010909@nostrum.com> <4A9C16D6.7010400@joelhalpern.com> <4A9C192F.3010307@dcrocker.net> <4A9C1CA1.6090603@piuha.net> <4A9C1FCB.70000@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A9C1FCB.70000@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 01 Sep 2009 07:43:19 -0000

Adam,

> So, to be clear, the question you have raised has to do with the 
> difference between:
>
>    "The IESG may choose to add an IESG note to an Independent
>    Submission..."
>
>
> and:
>
>    "The IESG may choose to request the addition of an IESG note to an
>    Independent Submission..."
>
>
>
> Right?

Yes.

> This has nothing to do with the text:
>
>    "In exceptional cases, when the relationship of the document to the
>    IETF standards process might be unclear..." ?

Right. The exceptional vs. always-on question is another issue.

Jari

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status