Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev

"Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com> Fri, 26 April 2019 11:05 UTC

Return-Path: <agmalis@gmail.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 751281201B7; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 04:05:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 buziNOGclmUi; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 04:05:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x733.google.com (mail-qk1-x733.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::733]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52699120116; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 04:05:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x733.google.com with SMTP id m137so1609519qke.3; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 04:05:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ijd1NjNhIk/hpI8FmdHWiCKXyUW/r+rD9EGViz4pC/0=; b=Qzzf0nuuYZxNI9qSL9RX/yKhScUru/83Ud3LZxauWXyFKvQBqskzG8WHs5zR/5nUqO 2P48i8VSLjlEwW9dggjRqIgAfsNeh26raj/a6FA8GdfleyZMhUMyK2i6qurO1PE0Klj0 ZquZfHjBnXaxaalNxnMtwmi8cibeto9kA4JaY2an+jD79zsvXez4fTdTaSojOAa05H+l 0NzdTWiTnhfm15XJ8mVmQ731IzCVfnc2I1WkYRAlHIIqW+EEMLfkVNIFK0M25/N6nL4a cK9gwMR7LppFjVGbB3mcz/d3XqDQMYhiNIkgkjOk/Da3OH9qxqckzF2RLdLc2xYc5uSG +jYA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ijd1NjNhIk/hpI8FmdHWiCKXyUW/r+rD9EGViz4pC/0=; b=hpdVp5K5DZ8H/cnZQxyBuT4Scdt67ufZGfnE/G1xMnpeBpDaSy6mcTuZbiMFgeI6/e 30adkoKj5DjgqtQfHTu4V4S8JqYk2vRBXt91NrOL0DzJlyIGllp85SKr4kCzwWXJNqHl GPI3ufuDh2MfuX2WgNf7IbUw2nC1XDIZ4FYJuasz6kPNSEl9HB2MXo6WaxUQ0hs5ag+T 6WSMY3gK9mUMDAZTlkfomD9kyr8o+StM396clrkFc75pzuL/niNldxhsietBdx7riegW Mg7jHSqpin8MzdPPCHi0kLyr0E1wur6/BNW8nn3xIpP6nKuWOKHnz5cjWxJjSMv2XkyA OJzQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX0Ab+nMEi5ba8It/EQSI0ZkdxwY7myIHca7KUs9j94rBw0V0S/ aKsCc5vUhXLQ65vA1UfSwaavhK+3MlxnK97SCfo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxQ5I021O+qVRram2eVkl3LPyIWLv5LNwgoCACCvq2O+QzVOE2FIvIvjZhZ6TV9qwuTy4/wrRJa2DpcqObZRxY=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:7f84:: with SMTP id a126mr33500055qkd.231.1556276719301; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 04:05:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20190424095017.13cdadc8@elandnews.com> <51068F13-E90F-42A2-8AE2-627D5E18B145@akamai.com> <20190424201939.GM3137@localhost> <6.2.5.6.2.20190424134823.0c9faf68@elandnews.com> <20190424211123.GO3137@localhost> <6.2.5.6.2.20190424144539.0cabcde0@elandnews.com> <20F28A58-4D1D-40D7-8513-2DA7A4A8778C@akamai.com> <07b301d4fb40$84b0b940$8e122bc0$@olddog.co.uk> <c5040945-c4a6-7bee-2a65-715341931712@gmail.com> <CAA=duU0qCx5okt_norQOB7GAJs0UZswS_6rZ5mshEu1KkSM_5w@mail.gmail.com> <20190426010940.GQ36553@kduck.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20190426010940.GQ36553@kduck.mit.edu>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 07:05:07 -0400
Message-ID: <CAA=duU0UAqEdcbqPUZ5gJNvOMh2sK1kJA8f=Ac5Amt3bgmWtOg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000006b6cf05876ce97e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/cYF088tzK-u8rYFn6WUXDvkwzPo>
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: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 11:05:26 -0000

Ben,

Thanks for your clarification of the use of the main ietf list (I had
forgotten that detail from RFC 3005) and also note the formation of
eligibility-discuss@ietf.orgfor the discussion.

Cheers,
Andy


On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 9:10 PM Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 10:47:42AM -0400, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> > I agree with Stewart, I think a BOF is overkill for this particular short
>
> I'm not sure that we need to focus too much on "BoF" -- I don't see many
> people specifically pushing for a BoF, whether virtual or in Montreal, when
> work could get done on a non-WG mailing list as well.
>
> > and focused draft. Even absent current AD sponsorship, discussion and
> > refinement of the draft can continue on this list. If general community
>
> I respectfully disagree: RFC 3005 is pretty explicit that the general
> discussion list is only for "initial discussion only [...] unless the issue
> is one for which the working group needs wider input or direction".  The
> IESG is working on a place to continue this discussion and work through any
> complications and/or subtleties of this and related topics, before it
> returns to the general list for IETF LC and the wider input from the
> community.
>
> > consensus around a future revision of the draft can be shown on the list
> > (as usual, by the absence of continued commenting following a new
> > revision), it may then be more difficult for the IESG to not find at
> least
> > one member to sponsor the publication process, including IETF last call.
>
> Indeed.  I note that, per my understanding of
> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/AreasDescription, an AD sponsoring a
> draft should have personally reviewed that document and believe it ready
> for publication as-is.  Given the continued discussion regarding this
> document, I believe that a conclusion that the document is not ready for
> publication "as-is" is justified, but I'm happy to see the discussion
> progress.
>
> -Ben
>
>