IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 03 July 2013 19:16 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 CF44921F9D2A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 12:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 NQZKlIvEmgZE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 12:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og127.obsmtp.com (exprod7og127.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5647621F9D34 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 12:16:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob127.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUdR4iQevj5zcqtxPHjpITWvhSaSQl9Cx@postini.com; Wed, 03 Jul 2013 12:16:26 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A23F1B821C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 12:16:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A0E919005D; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 12:16:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.131]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 12:16:24 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: "<dcrocker@bbiw.net>" <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Subject: Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
Thread-Topic: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
Thread-Index: AQHOeAr6jJNMZG4uG0u15Lq4M4CaQJlTuMMAgAAQHIA=
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 19:16:24 +0000
Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751FB1A0@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
References: <20130702222442.2467.13086.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F12408223F494ECC@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk> <51D45225.1000804@qti.qualcomm.com> <51D46B04.4010104@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <51D46B04.4010104@dcrocker.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <3924A35029F2E1478D8E8FDE2A14FFAE@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "<ietf@ietf.org>" <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 19:16:33 -0000

On Jul 3, 2013, at 2:18 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:
> As with most 'social' analyses, it's usually a good idea to look for a bit more than an entirely trivial numbers game, such as by trying to find some criterion that helps to distinguish amongst the appellants.

Yup.   E.g., it's worth reading the IESG response to John Klensin's appeal, and also the IESG response to Dean's most recent appeal.   I wasn't on the IESG for either of these, so I have no attachment to the text as written, but in both cases it seems very clear to me that the right thing was done, and that the responses were well reasoned and thorough.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email