IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors

"Joe Abley" <jabley@hopcount.ca> Tue, 02 June 2015 15:12 UTC

Return-Path: <jabley@hopcount.ca>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 499231ACE10 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 08:12:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham
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 Uopa4EViMOXb for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 08:12:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x229.google.com (mail-wi0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 137F51ACDC9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 08:12:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wifw1 with SMTP id w1so148891975wif.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Jun 2015 08:12:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hopcount.ca; s=google; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-type; bh=2XykW5mv0wyWh+x4qEkSjIs/bSi+c8FnmsJ6zPZsgKY=; b=D1uFKfnOlhWMO+UXKgywFxddDPBfdeYOqtLaDdBpNTEMko4xEkLN1VsupwX7GbN2WE yeJ4mEPqqKaKf6QbZlZG7yfQFvPnjVegOZccLq6ifWEDolm1xt76KhYifxdeYk9pnFuD SJ1xjGV07B/rw8l9rp5qm8zuG3Cmj/RfxG37Y=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type; bh=2XykW5mv0wyWh+x4qEkSjIs/bSi+c8FnmsJ6zPZsgKY=; b=mLVFZY+Z2I3crLGggF7j/Nob4zC+IYgAMIOyVAF3FbLtFbFDbN1/uifOTbNR7jZzop FEp0x1w6c2kK47t8q3YSS7Bu4i18+Ll5fmdcw5vsELMzPw6E1J+KaZxetuZpLIyQgcFh H19u3VOTfIK13cRnFzJ9ebLXcoazWq6pwtnNgm/FfmdFwJdAF2jOXdRuQZ0dp/bgSl/U ofCRlP7f5wR3+QiEqsLiAdfbIK9CP4DV0biGUV+9wylIb0XD5lInBUfllJIwYwzxm0Vp 8Y2fXqyjnRKiC3KNT4ZOGqv9JGncMoxWb2Vrodb54PLVCDAFZlPvEuzjCFag99Plvmup tOZw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlW3TWWtemA4znUY3H4+oCajRsB8CdmPWyhZ4vsiiivTVxM9rvkIvsw0Imdv+dFFvS5yPWL
X-Received: by 10.194.222.230 with SMTP id qp6mr52380074wjc.70.1433257973855; Tue, 02 Jun 2015 08:12:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [197.4.16.76] ([197.4.16.76]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ju2sm22099361wid.12.2015.06.02.08.12.52 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 02 Jun 2015 08:12:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
To: "Larry Kreeger (kreeger)" <kreeger@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 16:12:50 +0100
Message-ID: <1264A7D6-9367-47B2-BDC8-980657E672D2@hopcount.ca>
In-Reply-To: <D19234AC.1498A0%kreeger@cisco.com>
References: <D18E2F33.14965E%kreeger@cisco.com> <20150531170415.24384.qmail@ary.lan> <D19234AC.1498A0%kreeger@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.1r5084)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NN1xdojCJFNMaxSvaF55nlLOo7s>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 15:12:56 -0000


On 2 Jun 2015, at 0:18, Larry Kreeger (kreeger) wrote:

> I had thought about the added time it would take to post a draft, 
> which
> could be nerve wracking when posting at the deadline, but I figured 
> this
> is the price we "pay" for added security (like taking our shoes off 
> for
> airport security).

I don't think that taking off your shoes at airport security does 
anything to improve airport security. But I do think it's a good analogy 
in this case, since it certainly adds inconvenience for no discernible 
purpose.


Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email