IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Try this: was Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period

"RFC ISE (Adrian Farrel)" <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org> Sun, 08 September 2019 18:27 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.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 759DF12004D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Sep 2019 11:27:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 RucbQPDKNTDX for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Sep 2019 11:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D246120019 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Sep 2019 11:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3143020217B; Sun, 8 Sep 2019 11:25:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4-Ps8IYpVi3Q; Sun, 8 Sep 2019 11:25:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from www.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89A34202179; Sun, 8 Sep 2019 11:25:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 87.112.72.158 (SquirrelMail authenticated user rfcpise) by www.amsl.com with HTTP; Sun, 8 Sep 2019 18:25:48 -0000
Message-ID: <f3edd70c403583ab560888be39001d14.squirrel@www.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <ec715385-93ca-ddf0-f9b1-d0e4ae1666fe@nthpermutation.com>
References: <ec715385-93ca-ddf0-f9b1-d0e4ae1666fe@nthpermutation.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2019 18:25:48 -0000
Subject: Re: Try this: was Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period
From: "RFC ISE (Adrian Farrel)" <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>
To: Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>
Cc: IETF Discuss List <ietf@ietf.org>, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Reply-To: rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/o3r3KcgA4PwgX-HH_N9Ad4fVm10>
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: Sun, 08 Sep 2019 18:27:06 -0000

Hi Mike,

With my ISE hat on...

> I also added an "optional deliverable" to cover April fool's RFCs.

While the ISE in some sense sits under the RSE, I believe that the 4/1
RFCs are the responsibility of the ISE, not the RSE.

Operationally, the ISE has always asked the for an opinion on candidate
documents, but the final decision has been with the ISE.

I don't think you need to include this in the SoW.

Best,
Adrian
-- 
Adrian Farrel (ISE),
rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email