Re: Last Call: <draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-03.txt> (IETF Guidelines for Conduct) to Best Current Practice

Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com> Fri, 10 January 2014 10:04 UTC

Return-Path: <stbryant@cisco.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 E5A461ACC82 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 02:04:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.038
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.038 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 5zPxHJM69O-U for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 02:04:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6EC31ADF23 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 02:04:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=20137; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1389348242; x=1390557842; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=EhZd3wsZKoLXe1QpG0CBvLlV14Q9TVG2tuEDPLor2u8=; b=T2ngzGb5yTB+GSS/FYeFpnOJwsuiGCKEH3xAd3P/G+5oBYGsXOZ2+4GZ x7jzDWyjfxwAq0LGznscY/IPGquo4LGRJG5/CrYHT6PEc9iPW6Vf7vzde 3KVGJWsCLRq55NL1D5Wz2mpYrCx5fZoQ7dgVIcTuph8cG1pRIxo/dbJei Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ah4FADXEz1KQ/khR/2dsb2JhbABZgws4uheBBxZ0giUBAQEEAQEBawoBEAsOAwMBAgEJFgEDBAcJAwIBAgEPBh8JCAYBDAEFAgEBh2wDEQ2+Bw2FIReMcoExCgEGAS4REQYBBoJPgWIElDOBeIFsjFqFO4FvgT6BaAEIFw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,637,1384300800"; d="scan'208,217";a="3435008"
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.72.81]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Jan 2014 10:04:01 +0000
Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.70.36]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0AA405J018873 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 10 Jan 2014 10:04:01 GMT
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cisco.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id s0AA3uv8009141; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 10:03:57 GMT
Message-ID: <52CFC58C.3020000@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 10:03:56 +0000
From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-03.txt> (IETF Guidelines for Conduct) to Best Current Practice
References: <CAP+sJUfS=fAOS2E2nYE_d0MiytcnYz4zA3eKOZ4n+E8=c2y7hw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP+sJUfS=fAOS2E2nYE_d0MiytcnYz4zA3eKOZ4n+E8=c2y7hw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000901000705000007030600"
Cc: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com
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: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 10:04:16 -0000

On 10/01/2014 01:16, Ines Robles wrote:
> *
>
> Hello,
>
> *
> *
>
> The IESG approvedthe draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-06 
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis/>, 
> including these new changes:
>
>
> Section 3 (foreseeable was replaced by foreseen)
>
>
> OLD:
>
>
> “However it is to be noted that there is an expectation that no one 
> shall ever knowingly contribute advice or
>   text that may affect the security of the Internet without describing 
> all known or foreseeable risks and threats to potential implementers 
> and users. ”
>
>
> NEW:
>
>
> “However it is to be noted that there is an expectation that no one 
> shall ever knowingly contribute advice or
>   text that may affect the security of the Internet without describing 
> all known or foreseenrisks and threats to potential implementers and 
> users. ”
>
> *
Surely the best you can hope for is:

*"..without describing all **of the **actual and potential risks and 
threats to implementers and users that they are aware of."

*The advice is by definition a best effort service.*

*- Stewart*
*
> *
>
> Section 4:
>
>
> The word "adversely" which was added to the last sentence in Section 4.
>
>
>
> Please note, that due to this new version, the AD give until Tuesday 
> next week to provide comments before send the draft to the RFC Editor.
>
>
>
> Thank you and Kind Regards,
>
>
> Ines Robles.
>
>
> *
>
>
> 2013/11/8 <ietf-request@ietf.org <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org>>
>
>
>        5. Re: Last Call: <draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-03.txt>
>           (IETF     Guidelines for Conduct) to Best Current Practice
>           (Brian E Carpenter)
>
>
>     ------------------------------
>
>     Message: 5
>     Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2013 08:33:14 +1300
>     From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
>     <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>>
>     To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com <mailto:sm%2Bietf@elandsys.com>>
>     Cc: ietf@ietf.org <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
>     Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-03.txt>
>             (IETF   Guidelines for Conduct) to Best Current Practice
>     Message-ID: <527D3C7A.1060200@gmail.com
>     <mailto:527D3C7A.1060200@gmail.com>>
>     Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>     That works for me.
>
>     Thanks
>        Brian
>
>     On 09/11/2013 07:03, S Moonesamy wrote:
>     > Hi Brian,
>     > At 18:58 07-11-2013, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>     >> Fair enough. But people do need to respect the shortage of
>     time. How
>     >> about
>     >> "Working Group meetings run on a very limited time schedule,
>     >> and sometimes participants have to limit their questions.
>     >> The work of the group will continue on the mailing list, and
>     >> questions can be asked and answered on the list."
>     >
>     > How about:
>     >
>     >    IETF participants read the relevant Internet-Drafts, RFCs, and
>     >    email archives beforehand, in order to familiarize themselves
>     >    with the technology under discussion.  Working Group sessions
>     >    run on a very limited time schedule, and sometimes participants
>     >    have to limit their questions.  The work of the group will
>     >    continue on the mailing list, and questions can be asked and
>     >    answered on the mailing list.  It can be a challenge when
>     >    attending a new working group without knowing the history of
>     >    longstanding Working Group debates.  Information about a working
>     >    group including its charter and milestones is available on the
>     >    IETF Tools web site [TOOLS] or from the working group chair.
>     >
>     > Regards,
>     > S. Moonesamy
>     > .
>     >
>
>
>     ------------------------------
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     ietf mailing list
>     ietf@ietf.org <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>
>     End of ietf Digest, Vol 66, Issue 60
>     ************************************
>
>


-- 
For corporate legal information go to:

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html