IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: The RFC Acknowledgement

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Sat, 09 February 2013 04:31 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.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 EEC6D21F8419 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 20:31:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.362
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.362 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.237, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6BeuZ4QLs6o6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 20:31:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ACBD21F8200 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 20:31:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=705; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1360384288; x=1361593888; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=GhBLxkn0kWYvROYNEaB+5J/h1wycP6y5wZF3YmBaTho=; b=NwdH5c/jEmuj0X9O6tybDpetDkM2VCBBf7+AjgIF5FO0jrfcWmxP0Qob d5ZhbcQax/LaaiXdIxOvh8Qcj1yYeDjJyF8iDO8Q1vchTs3FNcc5rRTSl 6ot3GR3WUSOA/R7rZdul0C2hUEV6yZz1mVmVZ/RmjRFqYUtQgBcLOD29q 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: An0FAEXQFVGtJXHA/2dsb2JhbABFhga7EhZzgh8BAQEDATo/BQsCAQgiFBAyJQIEDgUIiAMGvwmQe2EDpneDAIIk
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,632,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="175209075"
Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Feb 2013 04:31:28 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com [173.37.183.83]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r194VSrT009956 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sat, 9 Feb 2013 04:31:28 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.149]) by xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([173.37.183.83]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 22:31:15 -0600
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Subject: Re: The RFC Acknowledgement
Thread-Topic: The RFC Acknowledgement
Thread-Index: AQHOBnM/FFQPWohiuE6oCEzaxzTuiZhxRPMAgAABkwCAAAOogIAAChUA
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 04:31:14 +0000
Message-ID: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B77478C@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
References: <CADnDZ8_E-cDqhXWV-f3MjoDo9hFeCVAdVTmRQ+McA--_3smyJQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAF4+nEFGdiwFiRkVtUQLR6b89c3SdpVcOmHULe35hwd+wg8CsA@mail.gmail.com> <5115C58A.4000209@gmail.com> <C3199FD591BFEB0B6F14688E@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <C3199FD591BFEB0B6F14688E@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.116]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <E964530096ED854180D2BC10ECB00674@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "<ietf@ietf.org>" <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: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 04:31:30 -0000

On Feb 8, 2013, at 7:55 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:

> My personal instincts as an author run somewhat closer to
> Melinda's criterion than to Don's but my bigger concern is that
> trying to make specific rules about this will result in an
> extended rat hole tour that ends up with rules that don't work
> well for edge cases we don't anticipate.

Yes. I tend to acknowledge comments on a draft, and to separately acknowledge comments that included text or which resulted in large changes - I do both Don and Melinda's algorithms. The important thing is, though, to be liberal in what one includes, and to be conservative in the application of legalistic rules.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email