IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15.txt> (The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force) to Informational RFC

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Fri, 08 June 2012 19:49 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 68F8511E8120 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 12:49:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uqw3hethiXFT for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 12:49:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1A5A11E811C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 12:49:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sn87.proper.com (sn87.proper.com [75.101.18.87]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q58Jn4Bk036203 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 8 Jun 2012 12:49:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15.txt> (The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force) to Informational RFC
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <09A09092-51D1-4406-9387-5F988552BF8A@harvard.edu>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:49:04 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <81AC4AD6-1EFC-405A-AD8F-B5AB03F2976D@vpnc.org>
References: <20120530225655.19475.74871.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4FC70E09.30002@cisco.com> <91BA408B-60F6-4451-910A-7D5C33F48038@vpnc.org> <52CB44AB-006B-407F-AA44-976271B3E27E@harvard.edu> <03EE51C5-CDAB-471B-8DE2-DFB40CE1E93D@vpnc.org> <09A09092-51D1-4406-9387-5F988552BF8A@harvard.edu>
To: "Bradner, Scott" <sob@harvard.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
Cc: "<ietf@ietf.org>" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 19:49:08 -0000

On Jun 8, 2012, at 12:46 PM, Bradner, Scott wrote:

> just to be clear - saying "final appellate avenue in the standardization process". could be read as meaning
> that a appeal of a technical decision could be made to the ISOC Board and that is not the case - 
> this is why I used different language
> 
> not sure which you were supporting


I am supporting not putting anything about appeals to the ISOC Board in the Tao. They do not apply to novices.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status