IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: PS Characterization Clarified

Scott O Bradner <sob@sobco.com> Fri, 13 September 2013 18:35 UTC

Return-Path: <sob@sobco.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 5E43311E80FC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 11:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.495
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, 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 Qef+5pRgcOpw for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 11:35:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sobco.sobco.com (unknown [136.248.127.164]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D3DF21F9FA4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 11:35:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F80F258C4C; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 14:35:34 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sobco.com
Received: from sobco.sobco.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (sobco.sobco.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lc1iPig2otPm; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 14:35:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from newdev.cadm.harvard.edu (newdev.cadm.harvard.edu [128.103.229.199]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B7CAE258C3B; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 14:35:33 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
Subject: Re: PS Characterization Clarified
From: Scott O Bradner <sob@sobco.com>
In-Reply-To: <3D82E9FC-2938-4FEC-89F4-CD147C8C0771@NLnetLabs.nl>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 14:35:25 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C886A9C2-C7E3-4D9C-A894-59C0D187093F@sobco.com>
References: <B8F661D1-1C45-4A4B-9EFE-C7E32A7654E7@NLnetLabs.nl> <9B5010D3-EA47-49AD-B9D0-08148B7428FC@piuha.net> <CAC4RtVDXVqZkCi1stmuoxawUVDi6+uG-bXWp36CM6-bsqNjiew@mail.gmail.com> <EC75AB54-8B11-42B9-8049-F70D09DB1775@NLnetLabs.nl> <CAC4RtVDj3tBChrJBiBiD6uwOtGRJHLDYeh62XbERrHp0i1Fmfg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPv4CP-DXq0=FX9nFDCo0HXvWKNRTJ+8ay=m7J=JyRxJciN-vw@mail.gmail.com> <522761EB.2000002@gmail.com> <13BBB594-4510-4903-917B-67D39F60E2BD@NLnetLabs.nl> <6.2.5.6.2.20130913094701.0bfc7df0@elandnews.com> <3D82E9FC-2938-4FEC-89F4-CD147C8C0771@NLnetLabs.nl>
To: Olaf Kolkman <olaf@NLnetLabs.nl>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, John Klensin <klensin@jck.com>, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, ietf@ietf.org
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: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 18:35:42 -0000

On Sep 13, 2013, at 2:32 PM, Olaf Kolkman <olaf@NLnetLabs.nl> wrote:

> 
> On 13 sep. 2013, at 19:17, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> The intended status would have to be BCP instead of Informational.  
> 
> Correct….  fixed on trunk.
> 
> 
>> In Section 3.1:
> 
>>  "A specific action by the IESG is required to move a
>>   specification onto the standards track at the "Proposed Standard"
>>   level."
>> 
>> I suggest "standards" instead of "specific" action if you (and the other authors) decide that BCP is appropriate.  
>> 
> 
> I have used exactly the same term as RFC2026. I have no idea if 'standards action' is defined somewhere.

I do not think we should move away from the ted used in RFC 2026

Scott

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status