Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist

SM <sm@resistor.net> Mon, 11 August 2008 17:47 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 BD7E63A6AFD; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:47:52 -0700 (PDT)
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 668D03A6919 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:47:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 n5d0maO9GQgK for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:47:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hubble.qubic.net (hubble.qubic.net [208.69.177.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CAF23A6801 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:47:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sm-PC.resistor.net (ADSL-TPLUS-106-198.telecomplus.net [196.192.106.198]) by hubble.qubic.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7BHl7ba004484; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:47:13 -0700
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=resistor.net; c=nofws; q=dns; b=3VMmcqhWuueqGP0T/Y/67LICBe7iz4i3QEKIrhfOCLIpTfIIQC6fpZ0XNXPySa2Qq RKNVs0YhvjS2aOxPibzhEmzgxd0ZT0Q2tv1M8rTxzE2WNQRpg1Fexk+V7d+x8ILgiG0 +Oc8rvFyFNd9YkJzZQBvrYsNmpQJpzZqrc9Gr5A=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20080811102704.05809158@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:42:09 -0700
To: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <bertietf@bwijnen.net>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist
In-Reply-To: <0CDF1105EE0F431B9B8D0D6B8D9AFC7A@BertLaptop>
References: <97789FA162BD4EEA9E668BD21E372BAD@BertLaptop> <489DC3E0.3000202@dcrocker.net> <46FE4022D7A994D15EA0F360@p3.JCK.COM> <0CDF1105EE0F431B9B8D0D6B8D9AFC7A@BertLaptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: IETF Discussion <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

At 11:52 AM 8/9/2008, Bert Wijnen \(IETF\) wrote:
>I think that both of you (and some others) arwe looking at the ID_Checklist
>too much as if it is part of our (rigid) process. Our processes aredescribed
>in formally approved BCP documents.

[snip]

>Pls do not consider this ID-Checklist as part of our BCP approved process
>documents. That is not the intention of it and I think it would be bad to
>try and make it part of our set of BCPs that describe our (IETF) process.

The IESG pointed to the ID-Checklist in its response to an 
appeal.  If the intention is not to have the ID-Checklist as part of 
the approved process documents, it shouldn't be used as a formally 
approved document.

Regards,
-sm


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