Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your review and comments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Tue, 13 January 2009 19:59 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 576FD3A6802; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 11:59:36 -0800 (PST)
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 1BF7C3A6950 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 11:59:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.099, 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 dZU4GBOr+ZHB for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 11:59:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from woodstock.binhost.com (woodstock.binhost.com [8.8.40.152]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B7C543A6802 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 11:59:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 28042 invoked by uid 0); 13 Jan 2009 19:52:35 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO THINKPADR52.vigilsec.com) (96.255.143.189) by woodstock.binhost.com with SMTP; 13 Jan 2009 19:52:35 -0000
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:52:38 -0500
To: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your review and comments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem
In-Reply-To: <C5912BFB.2F1CA%stewe@stewe.org>
References: <20090112221608.5659A3A67EA@core3.amsl.com> <C5912BFB.2F1CA%stewe@stewe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <20090113195934.B7C543A6802@core3.amsl.com>
Cc: trustees@ietf.org, 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-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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

> > The RFC Editor is asking the authors.  That is the list of people
> > that is readily available.  If the authors cannot speak for all
> > Contributors, then the document will have to wait until a work-around is
> > found.
>
>In this case, wouldn't it make sense to (temporarily?) suspend the rule that
>an RFC should not have more than 5 co-authors?

This guideline was developed by the RFC Editor, so it is appropriate 
for them to speak to this point.

Russ 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf