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

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Sat, 25 May 2019 18:34 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 26AA61200EC; Sat, 25 May 2019 11:34:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=opendkim.org header.b=JLgDVT8t; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=ACJlmdTz
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 g7OJK1ldvbXT; Sat, 25 May 2019 11:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADB0D120086; Sat, 25 May 2019 11:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([197.226.49.188]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x4PIYBv4002244 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 25 May 2019 11:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1558809264; x=1558895664; bh=hcUw/GeYzwgRH5CeuehSON45L9wMaZdDYc8Mz0xeops=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=JLgDVT8tcYlk9bABFuTfz8ThjcZP67GMbqbxFzexqn7OKQ4nhp/AY6bq1c2Z1JbEy ZNLRMCOE/Zkef4NidD/dCp5wHxPn8kjyQYhFOdrGSp1CLi156yrTZ242/uPNclKLoe UgYUFYsjBXSUXIlGcg8KrQPv+HeklQsjnji1Tpk4=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1558809264; x=1558895664; i=@elandsys.com; bh=hcUw/GeYzwgRH5CeuehSON45L9wMaZdDYc8Mz0xeops=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=ACJlmdTzS1h8lVLHb152zg711B2vYoyttC+wQocu+inz4YOUHaZm1EWkVy7pS3kdz xNtgs2rNW2xg2dJo6Ah1EWLgInbRhIEwZ1e93sdLlfJegOHleJSsqCjfYqhEIg7vby WoH4IMEXl5ctN3af7Z7ROzuGC5X6QSer/y3dcZaY=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20190525104743.0e1ec248@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sat, 25 May 2019 11:33:48 -0700
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, iab@iab.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, ietf@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <69e8d8fe-4040-edc4-f336-669d7be82f2a@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20190509041736.0d6d4548@elandsys.com> <f5834466-8f40-42bd-82d8-4dcb7d418859@www.fastmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20190509105617.0c08ef60@elandnews.com> <e854adaf-1ead-41d0-95bf-df56cb5a5914@www.fastmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20190514234822.0bc461f0@elandnews.com> <15BCE05FEA1EEA6AD0E7E5BD@PSB> <6.2.5.6.2.20190516103829.11f9fb18@elandnews.com> <E85C84CF-DB0B-410E-A0B2-A7C7E705E469@kaloom.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20190518141450.1163e590@elandnews.com> <75FF5D48-C416-4198-BC44-1B25524BF0E2@cooperw.in> <6.2.5.6.2.20190520025912.0ce8f378@elandnews.com> <69e8d8fe-4040-edc4-f336-669d7be82f2a@cs.tcd.ie>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/o86qv16yoCBP7qWx5mlCqFQtvQI>
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: Sat, 25 May 2019 18:34:34 -0000

Hi Stephen,
At 05:04 AM 25-05-2019, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>No specific briefing no. I'd say a bunch of IAB members are
>likely aware of the discussion.

Thanks for the input.

>Are you asking the IAB to collectively answer that question?

I'd say that an answer from an IAB member is good enough.

>IIUC the "IAB shepherd" thing happens when the IESG ask the
>IAB for someone to shepherd a BoF proposal and they've not
>asked us in this case that I recall. I don't think it'd be
>a good plan if the IAB decided to try muscle in to "shepherd"
>things that might or might not turn into a BoF without being
>asked by the IESG.

Thanks, Stephen.  That is useful to know.

>And FWIW, in this case, even if asked by the IESG, my starting
>position would be "no, this isn't something suited for an
>IAB shepherd as it's an IETF process related proposal" but
>others may have other opinions and I don't feel strongly about
>it so I could well be convinced otherwise if the IAB were
>asked by the IESG.

I appreciate that you shared your opinion openly.  It is not up to me 
to convince you to change it or ask you to take a strong position.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy