Re: [Ietf-and-github] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-gi t-using-github-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Joel M. Halpern" <> Fri, 13 March 2020 01:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 027A73A0CA7 for <>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 18:24:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.798
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TvL5GUGQSKGF for <>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 18:24:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA5353A0CA4 for <>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 18:24:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48dnzw4Xtqz1p2SS; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 18:24:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=2.tigertech; t=1584062684; bh=at1Kyevm7pQT0InmEySlMfAYmtOd7Quvcz1/gYjwQZU=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=jhQpmeNAqI1RXDxJDoKE5Y70IB3My17zMcKWqDmPZM59n/0YCtKhRzNDRBoKFSv9A jsPx6GDMzkQI0Nl3i3WzfPi98MJW+k+EjUEpe0iWnrzXKzFCSgdxebMEi7QfRqJ96C sdqPO3u1sXHJOBsKYahoXczX5AXsgUf+Mwmk+Rr0=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 48dnzt70v2z1p2SR; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 18:24:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [Ietf-and-github] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-gi t-using-github-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
To: S Moonesamy <>,
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 21:24:40 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 01:24:46 -0000

For IETF LC (including comments after the LC ends), the relevant AD is 
responsible for judging any comments.  In practice, usually the authors 
and chairs respond, but if there is some doubt it is up to the AD.


On 3/12/2020 8:46 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Joel,
> At 05:19 PM 12-03-2020, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> SM, I have trouble understanding the question you are asking.
>> During and after the IETF LC, questions were asked about the document. 
>> Being proactive, the WG (authors and chairs) have been proactive in 
>> addressing the questions (many from the IESG).  This seems to be not 
>> only appropriate, but highly desirable.  Given that the WG has been 
>> copied on the emails about the topics and changes, if the WG objects 
>> they can speak up.
>> What is it you are objecting to?
> I asked a question about whether there was a step after the end of the 
> Last Call and the (beginning) of the IESG Evaluation.  That is not 
> related to the discussion between the Working Group author(s) and IESG 
> members.  In case it got missed, I submitted comments on the Last Call.  
> Mr Rescorla responded on one point.  There were other points in my 
> comments.  I didn't see any response to that from the Working Group.
> I phrased the followed questions as simple as possible so that there is 
> less room for misunderstanding at the other end:  Who assesses whether 
> the objection is valid or not?   Who speaks on behalf of the Working Group?
> I skipped over the "patently false" comment so as to avoid the usual 
> IETF unpleasantness.
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy