IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch)

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sun, 06 October 2019 16:29 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 CA61E120120 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Oct 2019 09:29:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=TfJJo2Yl; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=iY4ayhyU
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 M3H2LX7i12MJ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Oct 2019 09:28:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 712C812004F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Oct 2019 09:28:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 62981 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2019 16:28:57 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=f603.5d9a1649.k1910; i=printer-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=ENdHx57Kh7pHynyCDEMpFd/Nfd4lnBxK/L5Lt8TCMzY=; b=TfJJo2YlzaGkK0OPSg8WhdV4qsw7z8oPswOGlNqPq0YBVednVIfWMOgnJ5b1VhWbJwXb5F8mgEbSjlbi1dq46MyDB22lKTdlSEyYuQqTPXlenIZbYiSxmbU1eJKLsYuGCAshQj9Gj3IldL1THyCOeiPCPoS/vqSsUPGhJfDapri2AVA2rnU/25a46XsRFGqOY3TBxTWqLk8Q1uxPjCplwNm8gkcfaoo9xoGfgrrvXqXH1LO6+IUBjQentLqkaPtw
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=f603.5d9a1649.k1910; olt=printer-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=ENdHx57Kh7pHynyCDEMpFd/Nfd4lnBxK/L5Lt8TCMzY=; b=iY4ayhyUOVcbogP509CO83vWEVLWHlrbaJEVV3vZnu0q6Owk5Yhm19k3Q5YkCNPrLxVPHYcxr/Xat72Kuyqi0l7NbP3HtbqNgTv6ZoVWaZp6yyN5aN1Kcjwsf53nAEuIxXFZDVXeAA/p2vctwIFLAAEeK5V9TYBZpaAzb+oP8JhnH7pLllz6D7dYqsGl5DHJpjKg59XG5A6ovFJzRi/0FJD/JnzQNRc+rSmbkJ9UAMhiui4TLnuWHMKFNW0t0Ajb
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, printer@iecc.com) via TCP6; 06 Oct 2019 16:28:57 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id EE805BAEE9A; Sun, 6 Oct 2019 12:28:56 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2019 12:28:56 -0400
Message-Id: <20191006162856.EE805BAEE9A@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch)
In-Reply-To: <F72B529A-30FB-4E96-870F-75DA333299B7@cooperw.in>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Vu_icMqxBXacoq_4ZSvccj_FqC0>
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: Sun, 06 Oct 2019 16:29:01 -0000

In article <F72B529A-30FB-4E96-870F-75DA333299B7@cooperw.in> you write:
>Hi all,
>
>The review period for this charter is a little longer than usual since this is a proposal for a process-oriented WG that did not
>go through the BOF process. As the charter text indicates, the idea of this WG is to help streamline the consideration of process
>proposals and leverage the WG chairs to help guide process discussions. Feedback is welcome.

It seems like a reasonable idea.

Is there any plan or schedule for a review after a year or two to see
whether it's working as expected?

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email