IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Mon, 02 September 2019 22:31 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 EBF1912009E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 15:31:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.679
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.679 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] 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=nostrum.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 kpPJ_BkCwdAF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 15:31:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 1799C12007C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 15:31:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Svantevit.local (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x82MVSde036006 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 2 Sep 2019 17:31:29 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1567463491; bh=vTtah7zuSZ5BKm/vdQfDXTFP2yWcyVtkravnhhA41gc=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=jxQoeJgpvdO02OxNg0QtAQeGweuGk3InRZNk+bFeDR9w5j5okXScmYUlM/ebG8jqs q6REfPi49DaelHritRfhv8FQfxe3NSFGsgF7oTrLq/RFnQvJui2BbhvQcMLvXV5cM+ GBrRPWmoQNyN7sbPUN9DrBlPkxduJYXHpFX/rtKQ=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Svantevit.local
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period
To: Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org, ietf@ietf.org
References: <061D2F46-71C3-4260-B203-73B07EB59418@encrypted.net> <5B276430-96A9-44EA-929B-B9C2325AFCA5@encrypted.net> <f9be9982-56f5-bdcc-3b09-13080532ffc5@comcast.net> <D7B6334A-A4EF-4386-905F-86C187E22899@encrypted.net> <00237fc1-e378-322d-87d7-8e6f27907f2a@nthpermutation.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <17ed6d9f-94b9-ad41-de64-28e4f982d2c9@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 17:31:22 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <00237fc1-e378-322d-87d7-8e6f27907f2a@nthpermutation.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------BB5BCB2D87609361F12D60A6"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/DkPYs1Xz_RszCgYOaUvchI6Cpd0>
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: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 22:31:33 -0000

On 9/2/19 2:24 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
> On 8/30/2019 3:39 PM, Sarah Banks wrote:
>> Hi Mike,
>> Some thoughts, inline. Speaking for myself. SB//
>
>
> Not really.  Seriously - you're the author of the SOW with the RSOC so 
> this is direct commentary on your work product.
>

I suspect that what she means (since I've made similar disclaimers in 
the past and have seen many others do so as well) is that she's speaking 
without yet consulting with the RSOC or IAB on the related topics, so as 
to avoid confusion between her perspective and the consensus position of 
either of those bodies. If you have a proposal for a better way to 
phrase that kind of thing, I would love for you to offer it up.

/a

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email