IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: Change the status of ADSP (RFC 5617) to Historic

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 20 November 2013 19:07 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F7231AE0DA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:07:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
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 LrxA2oiowl5O for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:07:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og106.obsmtp.com (exprod7og106.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33FF41AE0D7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:07:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob106.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUo0IXYQwt0mJ3nfVXIM4HkcGwbKrDgeR@postini.com; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:07:10 PST
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 C2CD61B82DF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:07:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-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 982C9190043; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:07:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from vpna-132.vpn.nominum.com (192.168.1.10) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:07:09 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
Subject: Re: Last Call: Change the status of ADSP (RFC 5617) to Historic
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <528CF2C3.6090008@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 14:07:03 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <C8AB8EF6-F794-4753-986D-348D1E7F40B1@nominum.com>
References: <20131002145238.78084.qmail@joyce.lan> <524D846A.6030905@tana.it> <CAC4RtVBb9FVtmjK4X5hCQpMorHnjmyJLU1sYbNh==iBh8SqztQ@mail.gmail.com> <528CF075.9000204@dcrocker.net> <751EE692-ABAB-4B30-98E6-5215C7E6397B@nominum.com> <528CF2C3.6090008@dcrocker.net>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 20 Nov 2013 19:07:17 -0000

On Nov 20, 2013, at 12:34 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:
> Saying "aside from the time spent" essentially marginalizes the significant effort of producing and publishing a write-up -- involving a range of volunteers and IETF staff -- as if it were a free resource, which of course it isn't.

IETF participant effort is not free, but neither is it fungible.   So when someone takes an interest and decides to work on something, it's not necessarily taking away from work they would otherwise be doing.   That said, I agree that if it is taking away from that work, it may not be worth doing.   Bear in mind though that the explanatory doc could be a survey that is submitted to the ISE, so it need not consume as much time as a standard with working group and IETF consensus would.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email