IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Second Last Call: <draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-08.txt> (Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed Standard

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Fri, 27 January 2012 04:03 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.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 CAA2C21F85D7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:03:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.588
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.011, 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 hd8hDLq83SOj for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:03:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A94221F85D8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:03:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from spite.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.72) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:03:40 -0800
Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:03:40 -0800
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:03:40 -0800
Subject: RE: Second Last Call: <draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-08.txt> (Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed Standard
Thread-Topic: Second Last Call: <draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-08.txt> (Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed Standard
Thread-Index: AczclhFxVlZ9dCNFTPa60pOVF7FZzAAEiwkQ
Message-ID: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C9A7DA06@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <20120125201714.3903.82295.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4F2075BE.5070201@nostrum.com> <033901ccdbab$6bae0900$430a1b00$@olddog.co.uk> <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B226F573BC9@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com> <4F208AEF.5060406@qualcomm.com> <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B226F573BCE@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com> <4F21ABF2.7040002@qualcomm.com> <6842.1327617385@marajade.sandelman.ca> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C9A7D9F5@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <CAC4RtVBfe5G=eEotH3gceVCm9grc7qxCT1siykbF+cHeNdArxA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVBfe5G=eEotH3gceVCm9grc7qxCT1siykbF+cHeNdArxA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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, 27 Jan 2012 04:03:41 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 5:50 PM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Second Last Call: <draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-
> 08.txt> (Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed
> Standard
> 
> > The document could be restricted to Experimental status, but that
> > presumes the status matters as much as or more than the RFC number. I
> > don't know if that's true or not in this case.
> 
> That, too, strikes me as a cure that's worse than the disease.
> "Experimental" isn't a punishment, and I think it would be a horrid
> idea to use the document's status in that way.  [...]

I think my suggestion was based on the premise of a past contentious working group whose outputs were reduced to Experimental by the IESG, and part of the contention was objectionable IPR claims.  I think in retrospect that was not quite right; the IPR claims were a problem with the personalities in the room, but they were not direct causes of the status changes.  So probably not a well-founded suggestion in the end.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email