Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Sat, 20 April 2019 02:07 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 B941D120255; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 19:07:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=1.5] 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=opendkim.org header.b=k89cnMdz; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=0pwmTXXz
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 I5Q322Uc35SX; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 19:07:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED0401200B4; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 19:07:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([197.226.55.174]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x3K273vc023725 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 19 Apr 2019 19:07:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1555726036; x=1555812436; bh=WFXDh/YtX97WrtsBYygP0ntodJECkb7JFsEQ+gAaXAc=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=k89cnMdztB5pc3SJXRJrT4ONAimbJYDRCtnvbMYtdGOPSW6+5dCG4JTrkDk6Lq50k E3Qal5Xg/Oz2InIBRbGlt5Z7ae7wUFv9pTI9fwjkWAuEnoRPvxbJ5cPglXfD8GhOu2 lG42WI57SR26dtgTMCfjjXkNoj5XuZx/MpUqOMMA=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1555726036; x=1555812436; i=@elandsys.com; bh=WFXDh/YtX97WrtsBYygP0ntodJECkb7JFsEQ+gAaXAc=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=0pwmTXXzGLCNnDj2M4yPLdAzMajW1sXIbbD5tIuSELLBmPnVRpzUkSsErKQQRLBK/ xjzVDb+refcwTb767scjPSKyO4mrrYIHF0+niC7Bj+3tSHNr/CAYHX6GqUDe9T5+uh jfU/GqIfJkBWttwzVZq4442958lgu1YhGPJqlinQ=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20190418115734.0dffb680@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 19:06:45 -0700
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev
Cc: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, ietf@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <54510B49-175B-4CE6-9319-1F9A4803940E@cooperw.in>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20190405085139.0d5c39b0@elandnews.com> <54510B49-175B-4CE6-9319-1F9A4803940E@cooperw.in>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/8vSffzMHrwbjnZHU511hab3aEYc>
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: Sat, 20 Apr 2019 02:07:23 -0000

Hi Alissa,
At 07:46 AM 17-04-2019, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>I discussed this with the IESG and our recommendation is for you to 
>submit a BOF proposal if you'd like to pursue this further. We think 
>these kinds of changes to the IETF's governance structure need the 
>more in-depth problem statement discussion and broader review that a 
>chartering process and working group would provide.

Thank you for discussing the request with the IESG.

There is currently a working group discussing the governance 
structure of the IETF.  I doubt that the draft would be in scope for 
that working group given that its charter specifically sets "the 
standards process" as outside its scope.  Is the IESG recommending an 
in-depth problem statement about the Internet Standards Process?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy