RE: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...

Abdussalam Baryun <> Wed, 05 December 2012 14:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BC2C21F8C9B for <>; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 06:43:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G5nPWsBkbStc for <>; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 06:43:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98BF521F8B2B for <>; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 06:43:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id l1so7094226vba.27 for <>; Wed, 05 Dec 2012 06:43:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=2CRcjZFAwhc5xgFVeWKUbGs1VBaCATF0hccoVLu7ozY=; b=C2F5MW2qBxIgcNURwfVTkUlxdEXX1SwG/Gjs1k5BI2zTpLSJUJT19eJM5+hzCRtL1i 3ba1ktq7nPHOjR6Bzr9gA8X+CseRN0gC5DBODDbSije4I52fsHphBEh/ctJyLBqqXc/e pvOXSEqcGbtZhJMByWk3OXXuKOWiXhj9JEwVcBh6HMQronYGtrs6/ulXh0oblFuG59IH d67s4TpJMQ0ABlIFhMTT9c/Fyjxi90OWUPZ10u4BYOl91+KdE9nU7UpAMqFyLrZ5/VLe NDlw8r++YIY6h0EkVJIiUogKO61hWKJxhBVBULKTFnvaso3upst8t+3C/u0TjZGFLl1z 1U7Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id qe7mr15813078veb.23.1354718615073; Wed, 05 Dec 2012 06:43:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 06:43:34 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:43:34 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Subject: RE: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
From: Abdussalam Baryun <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: ietf <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 14:43:36 -0000

Hi Stephen,

I think it is great idea, I hope it does not die, we need fast-tracks,
without delays, however, giving a fixed time limit for WG feedback and
WG discussion is important  (suggested 6 months), because discussions
about running code should not be ignored. The draft seems to not give
chance to WG to make a formal decision on its adopted work, why you
put the chair to decide for WG of taking the fast track?


Hi all,

I've just posted an idea [1] for a small process improvement.
If it doesn't seem crazy I'll try pursue it with the IESG as
an RFC 3933 process experiment. If its universally hated then
that's fine, it can die.

The IESG have seen (more-or-less) this already but it hasn't
be discussed, so this is just a proposal from me and has no
"official" status whatsoever.

Any comments, suggestions or better ideas are very welcome.
Feel free to send me comments off list for now, or on this
list I guess. If there's loads of email (always possible,
this being a process thing;-) we can move to some other list.