Re: Internet Draft block on post-IETF LC IDs
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 04 July 2017 20:33 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 1C16913174D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 13:33:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 BtwmamiJhDxB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 13:33:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg0-x231.google.com (mail-pg0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::231]) (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 B6BAE1316B0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 13:33:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg0-x231.google.com with SMTP id j186so114047520pge.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 Jul 2017 13:33:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HK6JwbP/bkdcrKkCPlojafS4Ue6ZlKXW4cyWaSKzrNI=; b=K5ntGKB2I5P8VNudbknZr3O42vh7vPYlvMzUO11xp4+pC/zo8qMEolw+fZy4njKRAt HgB0ujiBMmZEjbmwwdywt5tAl661psK77BHMOMTtGPxZqJB6YRG8BsL+O77fXAnRZUYm fDaPztKq+h4HAzVc7YBBdbrm3bTz81elF7xbnClECTkjwIq+nfGiM+3wHzmOOdfFecQw pJay0ywhhqSeoESQoNWSqfjOtEZjUo2Da1MECSpIjzI5mnwI2qq5i+VUUDDeqPnmJRft /FFbKuRQfy+YskAgZCqhDZXMNXpy97BuedOaGw6J9F+4IHmB+jUBGqh/UJ9co48kePAf X76w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HK6JwbP/bkdcrKkCPlojafS4Ue6ZlKXW4cyWaSKzrNI=; b=NpI6l/nbJU2Jrc1J1/vUAqdNUz1BSVlDjLKWLvExwwq6xQqhc1c18Sp3h/oa5tLSzK dBRKDgLA2LXa/IYJe4/cHKA14oJEjrxLXFKuA9FguTafCEFdfdy0kKO3hzp9pyiiyolA yLEAMLX7+2bzpKLoXF2aPIZSQQHbvPxB5ucmROqXXzUHtjQDTfYBEa9X2CTpZJfokMNN RzSpXL9qmO7ej0dXX/o5Wcs0qA/tsujaEIsMDFnpsbuUdizxJGo6yRL6Awa0q9j8Pf21 dtltRQA3wFU8Pc/z6MqDkuAyhn2qmu+3ESF9Tm3hQqw2598iiO4qxiEfRblLIlI00uFU 51wA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw1101eZTl7hu0P0RNemPm0qSogdnHWyinxUEWl+VaW1NGt5nfpkN6 ctXDPUriHdQIUooh
X-Received: by 10.99.123.17 with SMTP id w17mr17335555pgc.100.1499200422187; Tue, 04 Jul 2017 13:33:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:4f03:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:4f03:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u9sm47016420pfk.131.2017.07.04.13.33.39 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 04 Jul 2017 13:33:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Internet Draft block on post-IETF LC IDs
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <chris.dearlove@baesystems.com>, ietf@ietf.org
References: <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30DE6386604@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net> <D42C259F293B1C4AF75DD857@JcK-HP5.jck.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <5e8750e4-b649-c35b-f095-9318dc228f51@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2017 08:33:40 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <D42C259F293B1C4AF75DD857@JcK-HP5.jck.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/150HKFHyrKbYQaQVR9eCeWNU0mM>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 04 Jul 2017 20:33:45 -0000
On 05/07/2017 02:56, John C Klensin wrote: ... > So, with or without the posting deadline, I would prefer that > there be explicit AD signoff on _any_ I-D revision during or > after IETF Last Call. Such permission means that the AD has > reviewed the document and found that the changes are > insufficiently important to justify reopening the Last Call (or > a heads-up to reopen the Last Call if needed). I don't think that quite works. When trying to understand and clear DISCUSS ballots, I would much rather that changes are unambiguously displayed for everybody to see, rather than being buried in quite complex email threads (or in non-standard places such as GitHub). Of course you are 100% correct that substantive changes need to pass the rough consensus test, at least on the WG list and possibly at Last Call level, under the AD's responsibility. But I don't think that making it harder to post updates after Last Call is a feature. Regards Brian
- Internet Draft block on post-IETF LC IDs Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: Internet Draft block on post-IETF LC IDs Jari Arkko
- Re: Internet Draft block on post-IETF LC IDs John C Klensin
- Re: Internet Draft block on post-IETF LC IDs Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Internet Draft block on post-IETF LC IDs John C Klensin