IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

Martin Rex <mrex@sap.com> Mon, 12 September 2011 21:31 UTC

Return-Path: <mrex@sap.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 A59B421F8E22 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:31:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.021
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.021 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.228, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 ifcv4HX-6WpK for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:31:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpde02.sap-ag.de (smtpde02.sap-ag.de [155.56.68.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFCC921F8E27 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:31:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sap.corp by smtpde02.sap-ag.de (26) with ESMTP id p8CLX6iA000175 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 12 Sep 2011 23:33:11 +0200 (MEST)
From: Martin Rex <mrex@sap.com>
Message-Id: <201109122133.p8CLX63d027574@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>
Subject: Re: Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels
To: hartmans-ietf@mit.edu
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 23:33:06 +0200
In-Reply-To: <tslwrdgtaxy.fsf@mit.edu> from "Sam Hartman" at Sep 10, 11 04:11:05 pm
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SAP: out
Cc: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com, moore@network-heretics.com, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: mrex@sap.com
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: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:31:11 -0000

Sam Hartman wrote:
> 
> 1) I support moving to a two level process.

I don't, and there were some other things in the document
(last time I read) that to which I dissent.


> 
> I do not think the following types of comments should be considered as
> objections when judging this sort of consensus:
> 
> 1) You are not solving the most important problem
> 
> 2) This will not do any good

These are not "objection", but when gauging "consent", then
counting them as "consent" rather than "no consent" or "dissent"
would IMO be inappropriate.

"objections" is stuff that needs to be addressed by issue resolution
prior to any gauging/judging of consent.


-Martin

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email