IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Montevideo statement

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Wed, 09 October 2013 16:25 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.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 C202521E815E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 09:25:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.466
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.466 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.133, 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 Obz8YXLhNnCs for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 09:25:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0159221F8CDD for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 09:24:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06B9AF24089; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 12:24:21 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OGhSYJ8sbGQQ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 12:23:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.107] (pool-71-191-197-233.washdc.fios.verizon.net [71.191.197.233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2290F2408B; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 12:24:19 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Montevideo statement
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20131008213432.0c1e4b30@resistor.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 12:24:00 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <63642766-94C3-4A0A-A5D9-6722E89FBFC4@vigilsec.com>
References: <ABCF1EB7-3437-4EC3-B0A8-0EDB2EDEA538@ietf.org> <20131007225129.GA572@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20131008213432.0c1e4b30@resistor.net>
To: SM <sm@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Cc: IETF <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: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 16:25:23 -0000

SM:

> This is the second time that the IAB has issued a statement without requesting comments from the IETF Community.  In my humble opinion it would be good if there was a comment period.

This is a statement about what happened at a meeting.  Discussion would not change what happened at the meeting.  Making the statement very public allows a good discussion of what should happen next.  I look forward to that discussion.

Russ

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email