IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Fri, 10 July 2020 18:51 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 579793A085C; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 11:51:45 -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 OHldgWXzaRgg; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 11:51:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAFDD3A085A; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 11:51:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.116.28.158]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 06AIpPo9006212 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 10 Jul 2020 11:51:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1594407097; x=1594493497; i=@elandsys.com; bh=t3amUncI7saoVOBz7uVm8scAPzVfratDrm/qCHEnkLo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=Pt2bEXtEIkCZFE9Xo/j6e+ztIUdd4nHMcjkuTuI+NG67oudPC7rJG9PgqVUDuzJYr K1z1bHxu+lcCGpg6EoJoMLRgWtGE5C8q2WfxQP0i8yS+VL9Z645ls+4qMGL5a7lnYh QgWyKZB3Srq8wLYs0UjJrvgtSpS/U5Jy1L4tP/YM=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20200710113940.0ac68208@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 11:49:38 -0700
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, ietf@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo)
Cc: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJJwTLKgcEyWwmhPin3sX1C9kAMdj+ukMi2wfdAh399m7Q@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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/TsTHnzOYLBdkQwVjPqFAslEXLas>
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: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 18:51:46 -0000

Hi Barry,
At 11:34 AM 10-07-2020, Barry Leiba wrote:
>The issue, as I understand it, is that the working group was formally
>chartered before any milestones were specified.  Is that correct?

Yes.

>RFC 2026 (BCP 9), Section 6.5.4:
>    All appeals must be initiated within two months of the public
>    knowledge of the action or decision to be challenged.

Thanks for the pointer.  There is also Section 6.5.2 of RFC 2026 which states:

   "If an individual should disagree with an action taken by the IESG in
    this process, that person should first discuss the issue with the
    ISEG Chair. If the IESG Chair is unable to satisfy the complainant
    then the IESG as a whole should re-examine the action taken, along
    with input from the complainant, and determine whether any further
    action is needed.  The IESG shall issue a report on its review of the
    complaint to the IETF."

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email