IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo)

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Thu, 16 July 2020 17:23 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 6E6573A0433 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 10:23:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.697
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wtTKsKTPXk0k for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 10:23:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 957AF3A040F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 10:22:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.116.82.52]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 06GHMctp028855 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 16 Jul 2020 10:22:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1594920173; x=1595006573; i=@elandsys.com; bh=QlOAUO3zGmXw4Ss+iW6luBAkqA/Cngx31jyWeYuCyVo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=LP254jNoTN62V2CfqU1Vnq5lOZmLTzyU/aCKQT2pYRQNvmqZq9GwORuVUWpnA1jbp 8vBYFzOt1F78Qi2+b66je8yfi8NbdeS+6NGZqlGm1aXdRjqZE2p0XX82a7mSZzYjI2 Yhm5pBM4A0aa0g/uPoA9NUxSMt7pLcxIO8afV/28=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20200716084522.0b0bef88@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 10:21:21 -0700
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>, Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>, "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, ietf@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo)
In-Reply-To: <CAKKJt-ctB3dKtNGi=4LdgV8D-yJHS8w5SaG-+YxCp=A7ZAQcsA@mail.g mail.com>
References: <159318840162.4951.12569119165623562334@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20200627023025.0b145350@elandnews.com> <5C58F041-9991-49DA-98B6-6700499DFBC9@cooperw.in> <6.2.5.6.2.20200709132444.098ec410@elandnews.com> <CALaySJJbNHu=ktzeUX+k5Rj2bt2UQkx262mvD7wHLzEVXw3VxQ@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20200710102806.0b084a90@elandnews.com> <CALaySJJwTLKgcEyWwmhPin3sX1C9kAMdj+ukMi2wfdAh399m7Q@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20200710113940.0ac68208@elandnews.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20200712111856.0a815438@elandnews.com> <C30D52D7-376C-4599-93E8-48D16BDB262A@cooperw.in> <6.2.5.6.2.20200713124426.0b87c770@elandnews.com> <7F116050-D36E-4B78-80CD-48DEC24E32F1@cooperw.in> <6.2.5.6.2.20200714093250.0b840660@elandnews.com> <CAKKJt-ctB3dKtNGi=4LdgV8D-yJHS8w5SaG-+YxCp=A7ZAQcsA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/TMEsjF2uhqEtLMTEXexPf8a7sDs>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 16 Jul 2020 17:23:03 -0000

Hi Spencer, Joe, Rich,

The point which Spencer made [1] was that there isn't an IETF 
hierarchy.   I did a quick search on "IETF leadership" and there was 
a hit.  It is difficult to have an organization without any 
classification (or hierarchy).  As an example, there is a Chair at 
the working group level.

I agree with Spencer that it would be good to have a broader 
conversation.  I agree with Joe's comment (and Rich) about the IETF 
RFC "editorial board".

I don't know what is right [2].

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. I read both emails.  My response does not cover the points in the 
second one in what I consider as satisfactory.

2. Sorry for the short response.  I would have elaborated on this if 
it was easy for me to find the correct wording.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email