IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-thornburgh-adobe-rtmfp-07

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Fri, 21 June 2013 03:58 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.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 F30B021E80FE; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 20:58:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 wl4TTxIpQGuE; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 20:58:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5D6E21E80FD; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 20:58:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.12] (cpe-76-187-92-156.tx.res.rr.com [76.187.92.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r5L3wcYg054943 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 20 Jun 2013 22:58:38 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-thornburgh-adobe-rtmfp-07
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <BB60A472FABE3AE51CEFBE8C@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 22:58:38 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <50EEE929-781D-4181-ABC6-F05783FD55B9@nostrum.com>
References: <9BC409BF-0E49-4057-B590-9D030228DC6E@nostrum.com> <CAC4RtVApoWxr-fBWvLnUUS=UxpBk_7+X07f4m85o_1nej=84EQ@mail.gmail.com> <BB60A472FABE3AE51CEFBE8C@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 76.187.92.156 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: "<gen-art@ietf.org> Team" <gen-art@ietf.org>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, draft-thornburgh-adobe-rtmfp.all@tools.ietf.org, IETF-Discussion list <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, 21 Jun 2013 03:58:43 -0000

On Jun 20, 2013, at 10:12 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:

> p.s. I started a much more detailed response to Ben, but I think
> the essence of it is above.  IMO, a discussion that amounts to
> whether or not an AD used bad judgment by choosing to sponsor an
> individual Informational submission (or whether ADs should have
> that power at all) should not become part of evaluating a
> particular document's appropriateness.

I certainly didn't mean this to be a discussion of AD judgement. I suspect this would not be the first time the IETF has published an informational RFC that describes a non-IETF protocol, so there's probably precedent for doing so. It might be worth discussing whether that's a good precedent.

I also recognize that the authors have done a _lot_ of work on this draft, so this entire discussion is probably a bit unfair to them. I actually do hope it gets published somewhere.

Thanks!

Ben.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email