IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: I-D Action: draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-00.txt

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Sun, 10 June 2012 16:23 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 45AF821F85F6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 09:23:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id opTId6pgXPUh for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 09:23:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5D3B21F8470 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 09:23:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.101] (50-1-50-97.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.50.97] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5AGNee0015643 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 10 Jun 2012 09:23:41 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-00.txt
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <4FD4C49F.8080508@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 09:23:40 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3E95A8C1-08F1-4519-95AF-1E99FA205B28@vpnc.org>
References: <20120609221936.12063.68465.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4FD47CF1.4080107@gmail.com> <4FD4C49F.8080508@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
Cc: IETF discussion list <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: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 16:23:54 -0000

On Jun 10, 2012, at 9:00 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Oh, one thing I now realise is that the draft doesn't state that
> the editor (in deciding what changes to adopt) and the IESG
> (in approving an update) will of course do so by a normal IETF
> consensus process (presumably ad hoc last calls) and subject
> to appeal like anything else. This is so obvious in the IETF
> context that I didn't even notice that it wasn't stated.

It is not what was intended.

- There was no mention to me of "ad hoc last calls", so I did not include them in the draft. 

- Is there an appeals process for the content of the various web pages created by the IESG?

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email