IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Running code, take 2

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Fri, 14 December 2012 01:17 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 4393921F8ADA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 17:17:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UpiRfqNbvGVG for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 17:17:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDB5221F88D8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 17:17:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1TjJuE-000O8S-Jg; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:17:38 -0500
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:17:33 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Subject: Re: Running code, take 2
Message-ID: <E4554DA7B4661680FAC1DF29@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <m2lid1ze5l.wl%randy@psg.com>
References: <50C8DB78.3080905@gmail.com> <50C9DED7.8060604@tana.it> <006601cdd93c$6f9f7a00$4ede6e00$@olddog.co.uk> <9F862855-15A5-4109-88AE-32AAD7D1C21C@viagenie.ca> <50CA189E.1090002@gmail.com> <m2sj79zuot.wl%randy@psg.com> <50CA4DFA.9050500@gmail.com> <CD38357DE61404E1B49E9B93@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <m2lid1ze5l.wl%randy@psg.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: IETF Disgust <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, 14 Dec 2012 01:17:40 -0000

--On Thursday, December 13, 2012 16:11 -0800 Randy Bush
<randy@psg.com> wrote:

>> My concern remains that we not create new formal procedures
>> to do (or even experiment with) things that can be done under
>> existing rules either for the whole IETF or on an area by
>> area or even document by document basis
> 
> <aol>
> 
> my apologies.  i did not mean that formal implementation
> reports should be filed for everything, or even everything
> that wants to be on a fast track, if there is a fast track.
> 
> i meant merely to illustrate that we already have flavors for
> filing implementation reports.  and i was asking if/how
> melinda thought the format of reporting might affect the speed
> and direction of the track.

I actually understood that.  Sorry for not being clear.  My
concern about creating new procedures, of even a formal
experiment, is almost orthogonal to your comments and
illustration, for which I'm grateful and in complete agreement.

    john

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email