Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 02 April 2020 18:10 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 4407C3A0917 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 11:10:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1536-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=iecc.com header.b=Nh1TPyCd; dkim=fail (1536-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=taugh.com header.b=ETbqUXVx
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 uRQyWV5VuR3d for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 11:10:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AD213A08ED for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 11:10:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 98701 invoked by uid 100); 2 Apr 2020 18:10:54 -0000
Date: 2 Apr 2020 18:10:53 -0000
Message-ID: <r659rd$2vv1$1@gal.iecc.com>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cleverness; s=18185.5e862aae.k2004; i=news@user.iecc.com; bh=s+3xh+37xsJju3s7RdYOkZ7Yrs8yWZ8i+GucwD5Btms=; b=Nh1TPyCdwr6n1CmWtvCRuNOy9wf0+EjVaCAyaDk5qNMUJ22TEFPJweqe8Xct4t5Ulg40sfk5092osBdEfBwqnwt8iNv/yRM2OaXYe+D6/uMyU9OFc1PEkpPyudMHrve7E01K527LIvKk7cX0yN8XsN/6Erm1iBTmiVIdGFsSbz6hfqfskts3QWcAqF5r04CcZTbaHTNEgC8CutmaP1U/NHkd4Ka9iODcjxqQ7LYl95oIYXtW4HoTR6gD/aecwQIO
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cleverness; s=18185.5e862aae.k2004; olt=news@user.iecc.com; bh=s+3xh+37xsJju3s7RdYOkZ7Yrs8yWZ8i+GucwD5Btms=; b=ETbqUXVx6oFD4mqm2jpVlGHPUJvHPnwx6HzPfsZlPSYvwtqEx/Y7Uxhqceo2hk0DjYb99G/kEcp1ixLcEHltojzdigwnbIBdJ2tmyeWNgz0YJF5OJKaqNWzWdx6SpF71GuQm3sczOOFD7b0yAh2eyfGCCRt9cENjnjrlgih9iTb6he80HrQGl9F9LfrrbSy6U6KR1vMlbspvXOdKlX5oRoT8rAGZK3DujJl9idpa1yMl9cs59dFL7XohvnWvQc1d
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
Organization: Taughannock Networks
References: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVBy7iVT4NVLw14+=a1ksWrg35q+dsKfs+9r2poiVo3wkg@mail.gmail.com> <0FC773BE-7B20-402C-AC7E-183A321741E0@gmail.com> <CAC4RtVBjTjOWLMTFvM50DR2piOLQ4jniXTWPunOoMfvdkOzvXw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVBy7iVT4NVLw14+=a1ksWrg35q+dsKfs+9r2poiVo3wkg@mail.gmail.com> <0FC773BE-7B20-402C-AC7E-183A321741E0@gmail.com> <CAC4RtVBjTjOWLMTFvM50DR2piOLQ4jniXTWPunOoMfvdkOzvXw@mail.gmail.com>
Cleverness: some
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: johnl@iecc.com (John Levine)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/GGWbres_v4L4pSpUwE0bLi9zWew>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 02 Apr 2020 18:10:57 -0000

In article <CAC4RtVBjTjOWLMTFvM50DR2piOLQ4jniXTWPunOoMfvdkOzvXw@mail.gmail.com>om>,
Barry Leiba  <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
>> I read the draft and I support it.
>
>Thanks, Bob.
>
>> One nit:  Should it say that it updates BCP10?
>
>I think it should not, but should be its own BCP.

I'm enough of an optimist to hope that we don't need a defined process
for future global pandemics.  And even if we did, the chances that the
next pandemic would be sufficiently similar to use the same changes
are low.  Put it on the calendar for 2122.

R's,
John
-- 
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly