IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Terminology discussion threads

"STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com> Thu, 13 August 2020 16:49 UTC

Return-Path: <bs7652@att.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 A32613A0E66 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 09:49:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Jk5k_jKHTWgv for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 09:49:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (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 679683A0EA2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 09:49:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0049287.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049287.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 07DGgrCB013368; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 12:48:29 -0400
Received: from alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp6.sbc.com [144.160.229.23]) by m0049287.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 32w8gg984w-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 13 Aug 2020 12:48:28 -0400
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 07DGmRRc025274; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 12:48:27 -0400
Received: from zlp30483.vci.att.com (zlp30483.vci.att.com [135.47.91.189]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 07DGmKGV025138 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 13 Aug 2020 12:48:20 -0400
Received: from zlp30483.vci.att.com (zlp30483.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30483.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 90CF740145BA; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 16:48:20 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from GAALPA1MSGEX1CD.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [135.50.89.111]) by zlp30483.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id 7B65940145B9; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 16:48:20 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from GAALPA1MSGEX1CB.ITServices.sbc.com (135.50.89.109) by GAALPA1MSGEX1CD.ITServices.sbc.com (135.50.89.111) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2044.4; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 12:48:19 -0400
Received: from GAALPA1MSGEX1CB.ITServices.sbc.com ([135.50.89.109]) by GAALPA1MSGEX1CB.ITServices.sbc.com ([135.50.89.109]) with mapi id 15.01.2044.004; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 12:48:19 -0400
From: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>
To: 'Ofer Inbar' <cos@aaaaa.org>, 'Nadim Kobeissi' <nadim@symbolic.software>
CC: "'ietf@ietf.org'" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Terminology discussion threads
Thread-Topic: Terminology discussion threads
Thread-Index: AQHWcAmn7BhMqew6+km0RkBzXqVRFqk2SLGAgAALlYCAAAJyAIAAH+YA///Fw1A=
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 16:48:19 +0000
Message-ID: <88952cd9400a4e00bb04ad79e21a6e3c@att.com>
References: <9ABDC2BC-E6A3-4249-99C5-F0BB3683A03D@ietf.org> <223A1539-30B0-424A-89D1-A968FFD4C140@symbolic.software> <aceec35c-ccc8-ccca-7a5b-7d23746f67e2@ietf.org> <A9BB633C-3278-406C-BD38-748646D7E454@symbolic.software> <20200813155300.GY3866@mip.aaaaa.org>
In-Reply-To: <20200813155300.GY3866@mip.aaaaa.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.70.67.135]
x-tm-snts-smtp: 84384EA16ABC7B06494DE56799B1D75C94BE6459E05E1E62C941D8FBE376B4B32
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-08-13_14:2020-08-13, 2020-08-13 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 malwarescore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 impostorscore=0 priorityscore=1501 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2008130119
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/YAm-iZ0oeAWoIW8t3jlrgwqYmkU>
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, 13 Aug 2020 16:49:34 -0000

> > I see that the emails from others above expressing *approval* for the IESG
> are not receiving correctional visits from the SAA, so I wanted to make sure
> that I expressed myself in The Correct Manner moving forward:
> >
> 
> I've seen emails on this thread of two sorts so far:
> 
> Quite a few emails have
> 1 - Expressed approval of the decision, and
> 2 - Not addressed any of the substantive issues from the previous discussion.
> 
> A small number of emails have
> 1 - Not expressed approval of the decision, and
> 2 - Also discussed the substance of the issues from the previous discussion.
> 
> I propose the likely possibility that variable #2, not variable #1, is
> the reason the emails of the latter sort have been addressed by the SAA,
> while emails of the former sort have not been.  It's just that the
> correlation of the two variables has been perfect so far, I think.

This email expressed disapproval of the decision without discussing issues of the previous discussion, and this email was not addressed by the SAA:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/UQgVv-dkk0uNhWcML8N-7sg_1nw/

Therefore, it is clearly allowed to express disapproval of the decision to end discussion. 
Barbara

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email