RE: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin

"Gray, Eric" <Eric.Gray@marconi.com> Tue, 31 January 2006 21:40 UTC

Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F43FB-0004CA-3z; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:40:57 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F43F8-0004AE-GJ; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:40:54 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA03154; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:39:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com ([169.144.68.6]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F43Q1-0007BM-UL; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:52:11 -0500
Received: from mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.12]) by mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k0VLeUgx011856; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:40:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from uspitsmsgrtr01.pit.comms.marconi.com (uspitsmsgrtr01.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.221]) by mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA29125; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:40:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: by uspitsmsgrtr01.pit.comms.marconi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id <DC3CG88Q>; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:40:29 -0500
Message-ID: <313680C9A886D511A06000204840E1CF0C8863DF@whq-msgusr-02.pit.comms.marconi.com>
From: "Gray, Eric" <Eric.Gray@marconi.com>
To: 'Bernard Aboba' <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, leslie@thinkingcat.com, hartmans-ietf@mit.edu
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:40:29 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 10d3e4e3c32e363f129e380e644649be
Cc: iab@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Bernard,

	The way I interpret your statement is that you feel that 
replacement of the existing set of documents - possibly with a
single new document - is preferred to writing one or more new
documents with the intent to just "glue" the current set back
together.

	Is that a correct interpretation?

--
Eric

--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] 
--> On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
--> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 2:59 PM
--> To: leslie@thinkingcat.com; hartmans-ietf@mit.edu
--> Cc: iab@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
--> Subject: Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin
--> 
--> My personal perspective is that on a subject as sensitive 
--> as banning, it is 
--> very important to have clear, well documented procedures 
--> dictating the 
--> process and who is allowed to initiate the ban.  Creation 
--> of more documents 
--> may not be the solution to this problem, particularly since the 
--> applicability and overlap of the existing documents is 
--> already somewhat 
--> unclear.
--> 
--> 
--> >From: Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
--> >To: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
--> >CC: IAB <iab@ietf.org>, "Iesg (E-mail)" <iesg@ietf.org>, 
--> ietf@ietf.org
--> >Subject: Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin
--> >Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:42:24 -0500
--> >
--> >Sam,
--> >
--> >One IAB member's perspective:  no, the expectation is not
--> >BCP upon BCP upon BCP.
--> >
--> >The devil is, of course, in the details.   Even community commented
--> >on published operational procedures should not be at odds with
--> >our general or specific process documents, or else that seems
--> >to suggest the process documents need updating.  And we have
--> >a community-defined process for that (which seems to result
--> >in a BCP).
--> >
--> >Again -- that's just one person's perspective.
--> >
--> >Leslie.
--> >
--> >Sam Hartman wrote:
--> >>
--> >>So, a clarification request:
--> >>
--> >>Am I correctly understanding that the clear and public requirement
--> >>does not always imply a process RFC?  In particular, John 
--> Klensin has
--> >>made an argument that there are a wide variety of matters that are
--> >>better handled by operational procedures made available 
--> for community
--> >>comment than by BCP document.
--> >>
--> >>It's my reading that the IAB is interested in making sure that the
--> >>processes and rules are clear and public, not that they are all
--> >>codified in BCP.
--> >>
--> >>
--> >>I'm not looking for a formal response from the IAB but would
--> >>appreciate comments from its members.
--> >>
--> >>--Sam
--> >>
--> >>
--> >
--> 
--> 
--> 
--> _______________________________________________
--> Ietf mailing list
--> Ietf@ietf.org
--> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--> 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf