IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] Try this: was Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Wed, 11 September 2019 09:55 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 D6D8812084D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 02:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=opendkim.org header.b=GN3kHT8s; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=JRm6vA5S
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 iL3zusf28r6c for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 02:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8A63120849 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 02:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.115.178.124]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id x8B9tNeV003232 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 11 Sep 2019 02:55:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1568195736; x=1568282136; bh=Cda2oB9GPYMD408eUVvmt7hWa7pe/Yy73NRlpMCBPq8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=GN3kHT8sLmCEv3CqD7S9YoAFCRBOKvl9lyTIQ8qbiqhcbf9+AEof2lYv+d5XuzGFg 9cWOH6Nsn689gdOn2rfDhFn6GvePVXs1wuCZFf8Vo6SXdZagPhfIZLZhslS6JDw8ZL u3mnRK1H0F+iixk4MkzOGoTMgHYupT22tbiZ6+h8=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1568195736; x=1568282136; i=@elandsys.com; bh=Cda2oB9GPYMD408eUVvmt7hWa7pe/Yy73NRlpMCBPq8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=JRm6vA5Szq2cMY8i2NGvrF09/UjKmcjWjAH+QK/RmYf31GR8i9f/ICD3cLAFpYn27 vi15fMKT+4SN1ihaiS3mZBYogIBzdHl1yFM8LepRPyb+ynf0x5WsMwbyjawvDTIW05 as3RodOIglKkONTaU6kmUcl/vfJSDKLuqS5Qp0K4=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20190911021138.0edf7c70@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 02:54:07 -0700
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Try this: was Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <9f7e2850-2d8b-d844-80e8-cae3eabf3d54@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <ec715385-93ca-ddf0-f9b1-d0e4ae1666fe@nthpermutation.com> <CAL02cgTqDTXgG1bU1DGBkdQ7XwV=2ryJzQU1QD8yNba-7ngk3A@mail.gmail.com> <44cbe750-e030-69d7-54ba-5eaeccc5f512@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20190911013116.0b9b6e20@elandnews.com> <9f7e2850-2d8b-d844-80e8-cae3eabf3d54@cs.tcd.ie>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/WZkH52j3jRevR0a7DxF02058F4A>
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: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 09:55:46 -0000

Hi Stephen,
At 02:03 AM 11-09-2019, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>I think a lot of people are worrying about what is stated
>in 6635 at the moment:-)

Ok.

>Personally, I figure that means that RSOC need to be allowed
>some latitude here and we ought not insist on this SOW
>following every single line of 6635.

It is up to the RSOC to convince whomever needs to be convinced.

>I also hope we resist the temptation to try make the SOW
>a proxy for the discussion about what to do about 6635. I
>don't see how any of us would really benefit if we tried
>that - the bigger discussion will have to happen in any
>case.

It is likely that the SOW will follow its course.  The discussion of 
RFC 6635 is bound to happen at some point.  I did not ask when it 
would happen as it is interesting to watch the show. :-)

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email