IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Status of this memo

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Tue, 27 April 2021 22:30 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 9C6E43A2110 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 15:30:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 xvLtWmyjbOkL for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 15:30:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D73543A2353 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 15:30:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FVGfn3Tp6z6G8x8; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 15:30:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1619562609; bh=nNpjQAzaSTQpxe7JDl7NBtJwIn5FrssfAzXhCdd5ZUA=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=rO7hWXRqbFqAPjaZd273DQQa6sZjaLhAsbsBPqe3U2fZQJrA/cgSDl+JwKg2JfIB1 OZkck5HjCiN7cL/Ma7wnB0XOWxLBi40Wa6gHIjz4v7P1Z22jEfS3oTkTEoMDrX0lho g8wbar9l9wwTWK6JZPrGvMAGdSyZWJv1gqqUCNp0=
X-Quarantine-ID: <Bn_1NoJlvWxB>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FVGfm5Bcqz6G7rv; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 15:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Status of this memo
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>, "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <376f83f0-89a3-cd0e-1792-c8434bd8a5d2@gmail.com> <9ACE59FA-30B6-475A-AF6B-4B874E4A2788@eggert.org> <1804294246.5904.1619512137931@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <D653D3B2-7666-409A-B856-2A4B1BA958CA@eggert.org> <3DBB64B1-40B8-4BC3-B66C-7F9B7F395874@akamai.com> <b5210c71-9500-3dba-05d2-4ae1c6ad16e9@network-heretics.com> <CAA=duU1VJs2vCE=uCF=fXO7FNedn9yPAaZWTgcaAiHTexA8uWA@mail.gmail.com> <CAF4+nEEz4x3HtUhWQ0ONYCpyHy27E4u7_chVEuHi3rDr+sc39A@mail.gmail.com> <b3762d56-bff2-6f71-caa2-69d34e81b9dc@network-heretics.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <c3e39357-3f8c-a138-69b3-8e8458221fff@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 18:30:07 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b3762d56-bff2-6f71-caa2-69d34e81b9dc@network-heretics.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/7NGf-7ohpFT2euiC1bZOfHYqndQ>
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, 27 Apr 2021 22:30:16 -0000

I have found repeatedly that
1) having explicit control moved to the WG for a document is very useful 
for a WG working on the document
2) That being explicit about that change is very helpful for keeping 
everyone on the same page.

Net: I agree with Donald.

Yours,
Joel

On 4/27/2021 3:03 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
> On 4/27/21 2:55 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
> 
>> I agree with Andy below but just to be clear, WG draft has a formal
>> standing as a starting point for work -- they are a draft over which
>> the WG has taken control.
> 
> emphatically disagree, and I believe that's a particularly harmful 
> concept to promote.
> 
> Keith
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email