Re: Two step, three step, one step, and alternatives
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Fri, 12 November 2010 23:48 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C77933A6A1A for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:48:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S2mytuEQAvMu for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:48:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 050203A68E0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:48:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1PH3N1-000Nzu-Gd; Fri, 12 Nov 2010 18:49:27 -0500
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 18:49:25 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Subject: Re: Two step, three step, one step, and alternatives
Message-ID: <A897B8CF161FFC3547E41D52@JcK-eee10.meeting.ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <4CDDCF41.9000302@dcrocker.net>
References: <B7E5004532B85C156EFB0760@JcK-eee10.meeting.ietf.org> <4CDDCF41.9000302@dcrocker.net>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 12 Nov 2010 23:48:55 -0000
--On Saturday, 13 November, 2010 07:35 +0800 Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net> wrote: > On 11/13/2010 7:01 AM, John C Klensin wrote: >> We've now got your/the IESG's two-step proposal, Dave's >> alternative, discussions about going directly to single step, > > > Single step??? > > That's not the alternative proposal that we put forward. It > is an alternative two step: Sorry Dave. At the end of an IETF week, I guess we are all tired. Please note the comma and parse that as - the IESG's two-step proposal, - Dave's alternative [two-step proposal], - discussions about going directly to single-step, - [...] john
- Two step, three step, one step, and alternatives John C Klensin
- Re: Two step, three step, one step, and alternati… Dave CROCKER
- Re: Two step, three step, one step, and alternati… John C Klensin
- Re: Two step, three step, one step, and alternati… Dave CROCKER
- Re: Two step, three step, one step, and alternati… Eric Burger
- Re: Two step, three step, one step, and alternati… Eliot Lear
- Re: Two step, three step, one step, and alternati… John C Klensin
- Re: Two step, three step, one step, and alternati… Spencer Dawkins