Re: Appeal Response to [removed] regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> Wed, 03 July 2013 21:04 UTC
Return-Path: <mstjohns@comcast.net>
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 8F06D11E824A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 14:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.437
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 YMuMvc6wctEe for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 14:04:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from QMTA11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:44:76:96:59:211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CE6111E8217 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 14:04:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta17.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.89]) by QMTA11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id vtJm1l0011vXlb85Bx44cW; Wed, 03 Jul 2013 21:04:04 +0000
Received: from Mike-T530.comcast.net ([68.83.212.126]) by omta17.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id vx441l00A2kB7pQ3dx44lP; Wed, 03 Jul 2013 21:04:04 +0000
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 17:04:06 -0400
To: ietf@ietf.org
From: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Appeal Response to [removed] regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
In-Reply-To: <51D484CE.1070806@cisco.com>
References: <20130702222442.2467.13086.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F12408223F494ECC@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk> <m2mwq4o5pr.wl%randy@psg.com> <51D3FF7D.5050107@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130703083609.0dd81668@resistor.net> <51D484CE.1070806@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1372885444; bh=N/O/hxwvBJ98FmdPUZkLRy9DVH+uIxSNzD91j72Uhg8=; h=Received:Received:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=IChfgqd6UqOCI2s9aF/cqqRggv5KnipyUKGc1B9OO6nuTNMnqxkApMg+tash6/zKH v6ASWxCAAiIKD5Nld84XQArx4Ee7CtDkeuTELBDiSta7R1I5Xh+16TYvrWdbsZVTqk 4Qq99efUK+lh+XRmMQ7TubxaskewsLO/tB1rtO80BczhmJKrsrrCuqKvbhP/+ndJNo ZuEaws8KzqAlhOgZyOqIaUq3V5YnZaTfYJAmHTswAOtefa4IwCSgnutKwxhcbDGEIM aU4pYZf+7d3+9Ahfggm4nOIpasAMEq2k9txgT7oyXrkygQ8HOllIWwGoRA8gcf4KXK XP+deSiD/BSWA==
Message-Id: <20130703210405.9CE6111E8217@ietfa.amsl.com>
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 21:04:11 -0000
Before we go down this rathole too far again - 1) If you want to second guess the working group, AD and IESG, then the best approach is to probably review the bidding by reading the emails on the working group list and then forming an opinion based on that record. I have and I'm pretty content with the current result. 2) With respect to credit, I would add that even to be considered for it a contributor's balance of payments on a document, standard etc needs to be substantially net positive. If you're trying to claim credit for a reasonable suggestion, but its one of 10s or 100s of unreasonable ones, and you've pretty much disrupted the working group while making said suggestions..... well why reward that? 3) I think we need to continue to give each WG and each AD deference to their established ways of proceeding - unless and until there is some determination supported by facts that there is a problem. Mike At 04:08 PM 7/3/2013, Eliot Lear wrote: >No hat on and I'm not commenting on the specific case at hand. > >On the general point, I think it's better to err a bit toward the >generous side. As an author I use as a rule of thumb whether or not I >or the working group has taken someone's suggestion and put it into >text. And it has to be more than editorial. A missing "," doesn't get >you into acknowlegments, but highlighting confusion or clarifying >language probably does. > >Eliot
- RE: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regardin… l.wood
- Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regardin… Bob Hinden
- Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regardin… Randy Bush
- Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regardin… Russ Housley
- Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regardin… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regardin… Dave Crocker
- Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regardin… Jari Arkko
- Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regardin… William McCall
- Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regardin… Pete Resnick
- Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regardin… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Bary… Warren Kumari
- Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Bary… John C Klensin
- Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regardin… Dave Crocker
- Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Bary… Sam Hartman
- Re: Appeal Response to [removed] regarding draft-… SM
- Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regardin… Ted Lemon
- Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Bary… Pete Resnick
- Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Bary… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Appeal Response to [removed] regarding draft-… Eliot Lear
- Re: Appeal Response to [removed] regarding draft-… Michael StJohns
- Re: [IETF] Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdu… Warren Kumari
- RE: [IETF] Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdu… l.wood
- Re: [IETF] Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdu… Doug Barton
- Re: [IETF] Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdu… Dave Cridland
- Re: [IETF] [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussal… Ted Lemon
- Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regardin… Jari Arkko