IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist

"Bert Wijnen \(IETF\)" <bertietf@bwijnen.net> Mon, 11 August 2008 08:26 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6F7D3A6E0C; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 01:26:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 373213A6C75 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 01:26:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.283
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.283 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.315, BAYES_00=-2.599, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p6AFJaFyn0WV for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 01:26:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.versatel.net (relay.versatel.net [62.250.3.110]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A90603A6E0C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 01:26:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 21162 invoked from network); 11 Aug 2008 08:25:42 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO BertLaptop) (87.215.199.34) by relay.versatel.net with SMTP; 11 Aug 2008 08:25:42 -0000
Message-ID: <E1683230BC964E0EA33A88162A591E99@BertLaptop>
From: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <bertietf@bwijnen.net>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
References: <97789FA162BD4EEA9E668BD21E372BAD@BertLaptop> <489DC3E0.3000202@dcrocker.net> <46FE4022D7A994D15EA0F360@p3.JCK.COM> <0CDF1105EE0F431B9B8D0D6B8D9AFC7A@BertLaptop> <EFB863C6392FD44E6F24541C@p3.JCK.COM> <489F7496.1090608@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <489F7496.1090608@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:24:35 +0200
Organization: Consultant
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18000
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18000
Cc: dcrocker@bbiw.net, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

I personally very much like this statement from Brian Carpenter:
 
> I'd like to say that both as an author and as a reviewer, I have
> always found both the ID checklist and the IDnits checker to be
> of immense pragmatic value. Obviously, if the checklist or the
> checker complains about something that isn't obviously a bug,
> the author, shepherd, AD or reviewer will have to enter "think"
> mode or even "negotiate" mode. I agree that it's a good idea
> to be clear about that.
> 
>    Brian
> 
>

I am checking with the IESG if they also agree with that

Bert
Editor for the ID_Checklist

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email