Re: [Ietf-and-github] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-gi t-using-github-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

S Moonesamy <> Fri, 13 March 2020 00:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30F893A0B1F for <>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 17:46:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.697
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A3zfVVMNWX9A for <>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 17:46:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45F533A0B1C for <>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 17:46:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 02D0kc7B014322 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 12 Mar 2020 17:46:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1584060411; x=1584146811;; bh=FFa5QyqHaQ2HKlQXvjpCze3x6MCJy2c18KzV9u1IghM=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=1U5vMnEfBivOlDKDt08nDx5bEwHsEO+RW6m4331/W06mF2/jSWh2NueIoKoJoLzK2 QX6IlpHutZSN1wXA7zFVgKtvWdHjYuYaGVrt7rPZQzstVrdkaDSk+AwwccnouV0oCp SlNrAl+ko/sKSs0EHS8KGNHlNYnj3SDxnqeVYmGw=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 17:46:07 -0700
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <>,
From: S Moonesamy <>
Subject: Re: [Ietf-and-github] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-gi t-using-github-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 00:46:55 -0000

Hi Joel,
At 05:19 PM 12-03-2020, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>SM, I have trouble understanding the question you are asking.
>During and after the IETF LC, questions were asked about the 
>document. Being proactive, the WG (authors and chairs) have been 
>proactive in addressing the questions (many from the IESG).  This 
>seems to be not only appropriate, but highly desirable.  Given that 
>the WG has been copied on the emails about the topics and changes, 
>if the WG objects they can speak up.
>What is it you are objecting to?

I asked a question about whether there was a step after the end of 
the Last Call and the (beginning) of the IESG Evaluation.  That is 
not related to the discussion between the Working Group author(s) and 
IESG members.  In case it got missed, I submitted comments on the 
Last Call.  Mr Rescorla responded on one point.  There were other 
points in my comments.  I didn't see any response to that from the 
Working Group.

I phrased the followed questions as simple as possible so that there 
is less room for misunderstanding at the other end:  Who assesses 
whether the objection is valid or not?   Who speaks on behalf of the 
Working Group?

I skipped over the "patently false" comment so as to avoid the usual 
IETF unpleasantness.

S. Moonesamy