IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: NomCom procedures revision

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Thu, 27 August 2015 15:21 UTC

Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
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 908CD1B2BC8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 08:21:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 WaVm9PaawTAz for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 08:21:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x236.google.com (mail-io0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::236]) (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 8DA8F1B2BB5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 08:21:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iodb91 with SMTP id b91so60713413iod.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 08:21:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=KgRahK1ZoyMkWckCSRaQUxZkKhJVol7XsKKQS+tCd/k=; b=a8q6TVkSwJ0X2MFl9VqOhT8J/Cf7ZmoneoDCJUxbaab15UlnWYqRfdWFVnAlpOg7RJ p1MG8qo99JUZ5NbfZ6vlue5ibSOrelspWwGq9BA1vaUyJ54cfmgM+302tgBBSeQWA+jV JX/F8qw6r2ndDfYtW2O09GLdBMgLHN3vpMvUaOSnyjffIlzNQZLc676KVnQAEMSng/vg AGfJ+TtVHZSrWkM9BPG9gtSw+I+L46P1r8x1+a8g1gRZjPc0Kyfr1X7eqcjBoV+LF0KB EjumscfB8fGitjLD6yj4ua3GOY0ty9ME4AfjM+Nz99S7L4p8q2GKJe3cLAB/EA6R6UEG 7u8w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.3.159 with SMTP id e31mr11199807ioi.48.1440688899038; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 08:21:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.244.8 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 08:21:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwYJzFZT=OgWqiiTw-n6mvb3PPusRtArmPs_d4_qpLfmpg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL0qLwYJzFZT=OgWqiiTw-n6mvb3PPusRtArmPs_d4_qpLfmpg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:21:38 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnDZ8_KsNP=_nwp2wrckXtHF8ZSxrQTvf9UKbAMpt68BiiCFA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: NomCom procedures revision
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113ed5580f22e6051e4c860b"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/dyZroh0Anb-tmzp4bNW087YUl2M>
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
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: <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: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:21:41 -0000

Hi Murray,

Sorry that I maybe not following the points, may be they were on the list,
but the draft needs to have the points of changes. I think section 10 is
important, so I can know the changes to RFC7437, this section is already
known by the authors but I am not sure why still it is not drafted. For the
it is important so I can know the improvements to the procedure in abstract
(even the introduction refers to this section 10). Therefore, the draft is
not clear and I cannot decide, and it may take a lot of time of the readers
to understand without knowing the improvements/changes.

Thanks,

AB

On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 6:01 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Some months ago I started the work of editing a revision to the NomCom
> procedures (RFC7437bis).  We made progress on some points, but seem to have
> stalled on revising the requirements for qualifying to serve on NomCom.
>
> The draft I have recently expired.  Is there any interest in taking
> another run at this now?  Alternatively, is it worth publishing what we did
> accomplish, and leaving that one point for a later attempt?
>
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-rfc7437bis/
>
> -MSK
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email