Re: last call discussion status on draft-iab-2870bis

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Thu, 05 March 2015 12:56 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D50E11A871A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 04:56:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 xIrWxK9Y6wQb for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 04:56:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 769DA1A01A9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 04:56:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C94822CED0; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 14:56:35 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oqaSRScS14A0; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 14:56:35 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41BFB2CD0E; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 14:56:35 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_769BF674-A181-4E40-9876-5A1B3A9A8FF9"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Message-Id: <FDF931C1-F089-44A2-BBD2-AF159CB0408F@piuha.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: last call discussion status on draft-iab-2870bis
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 14:56:35 +0200
References: <20140520204238.21772.64347.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <500031A0-DF45-409E-AACB-F79C32032E38@viagenie.ca> <4B545BEB-EA0E-4BA8-A45E-15AF12CDB1EC@piuha.net>
To: IAB <iab@iab.org>, IETF Discussion List <ietf@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <4B545BEB-EA0E-4BA8-A45E-15AF12CDB1EC@piuha.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/bp07C4aVc5z3W3Gt8xxCHrNWpGY>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 12:56:38 -0000

I wanted to add one thing that I said yesterday - while we can make changes
if there is a good reason and significant community support to do so, I think
we also want to be careful to not to cause RSSAC to rerun discussions,
as the two documents are proceeding in some sense together.

So lets make the changes we need to, but not more than that.

Jari