IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Fri, 09 August 2013 05:19 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.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 DAF7B21F9E37 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 22:19:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.532
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.067, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 6FLtK1UKxcWa for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 22:19:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x236.google.com (mail-we0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 299D721F9E35 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 22:19:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f182.google.com with SMTP id u55so3241518wes.27 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 08 Aug 2013 22:19:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=44pMCP5YcFcHVIA5pXUb+Z3LoHFTsfoLXiPsItZVJ2U=; b=S5jGLyCgMDfDAfWxwZ0gz/ELo3k1noo5kzOvPyWXQ6E30/5zQBfgm72MDjiPtAdWmm yA9C1Ltb9ouxS6+MbNNGHh2Bd+wmJkNVwhISYZRHPr3PGq5qrxxjgovtJvJ4hX7sfL3s LfNq5JhOjDCExeWxbmG+fJng6zo0Raf7gLo4zUVDZt5hifBnFv16mErB5M2MDi3smVOC zXm+VC5ETbRsVgzkia3e0uLdbcZC/7LHYY8b2b7VEgxyQkprbvLeXiBlSqvbpQX5Q+w0 UJ8KTfRZkgwXz/lt2iGIJaSQWHniG+VytgyYuwEvl3Y/C+3MQ8Q98aXjIX6doFMankgA 9b8g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.48.116 with SMTP id k20mr5355420wjn.23.1376025590332; Thu, 08 Aug 2013 22:19:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.125.36 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 22:19:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwgerUOFHgTVrwbekDX-hePzw8QuGAhTn=sPtp2CnNS02g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMm+Lwh2N+WhwWL599xjtES_jQQaubL4vGRJBt=L-2Nq8jd0mg@mail.gmail.com> <CE26746A.13BA5%joe@cursive.net> <CAMm+LwhX=h18vZvG4z_VUcSDVgfwavwEmY_FzDQigHrewa7Mew@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVCCHHsOuqDCLMimp0Xvrbu9j8SA7rmojjHEyf0-E1OC9w@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwb=QncDyjh_qqXm4AqzURBtxRNUgTSaSO6X8E9PchEF0A@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwgerUOFHgTVrwbekDX-hePzw8QuGAhTn=sPtp2CnNS02g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 22:19:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwYAYRWA=gMm-h2X7zjb_qdKhFUvxQqtM47DUume1a7F+w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7ba975e68383fc04e37cec36"
Cc: Joe Hildebrand <hildjj@cursive.net>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <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, 09 Aug 2013 05:19:52 -0000

On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>wrote:

> The point is that there would BE discussion. Consensus is not enough, the
> process has to be open. A consensus formed by keeping people out of the
> room is no consensus at all.
>

I believe this is why an AD-sponsored document undergoes a Last Call twice
the length of a document that comes out of a working group, and the
comments are typically sent to this list, which is open by definition and
also goes to a more general audience than a working group list would.

I don't see any evidence of attempts to exclude participation here, unless
your concern is sufficiently general that you also believe the Individual
Submission route needs to be abolished because it's too closed.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email