IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Review of: Characterization of Proposed Standards

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Thu, 24 October 2013 18:01 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 5CCF211E81DA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 11:01:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.576
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.576 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 tCVfE9ZJcy2r for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 11:00:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E1BA11E819A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 11:00:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.22.13] ([207.253.19.196]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r9OI0nFU024720 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 24 Oct 2013 11:00:53 -0700
Message-ID: <52696048.1050701@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 14:00:40 -0400
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Moriarty, Kathleen" <kathleen.moriarty@emc.com>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Review of: Characterization of Proposed Standards
References: <5269209F.3060706@dcrocker.net> <CADnDZ882Rex1GOK6SiGVXrizjNusHtLSbcH4P5AqABb+Y2tXWQ@mail.gmail.com> <F5063677821E3B4F81ACFB7905573F24049EA32C49@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
In-Reply-To: <F5063677821E3B4F81ACFB7905573F24049EA32C49@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Thu, 24 Oct 2013 11:00:54 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: "draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified.all@tools.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 18:01:01 -0000

On 10/24/2013 1:53 PM, Moriarty, Kathleen wrote:
> I don’t see how that is possible.  Different SDOs have different focus
> areas with clear interdependencies between the work.  We don’t need to
> try to replicate the work happening elsewhere, but rather should
> continue to play nice with other SDOs.  It would be really hard to get
> all of the various experts needed attend multiple forums because one SDO
> didn’t want to reference the work they did in another SDO.


For reference, the comment about other SDOs in my review note was 
specific to the existing draft text that compared an aspect of IETF 
documents to documents from other SDOs and my suggestion was merely to 
substantiate the claim(s) being made.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email