IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-jdfalk-maawg-cfblbcp-02.txt> (Complaint Feedback Loop Operational Recommendations) to Informational RFC

Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com> Fri, 14 October 2011 17:43 UTC

Return-Path: <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.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 B028F21F8C83 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:43:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.781
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.781 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.318, BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 9G-wmxVNZxVA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:43:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0795621F8C80 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:43:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyg24 with SMTP id 24so3685881wyg.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:43:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=CpOy69NwS4YpkiTtIgTUXVI7bdL9/XQGjzj/7nnwM4E=; b=Ml2PD17Kcop4EOlatV6mqwpzOZgw33IGMSPE2lBMEeY2FK+7OfOI7+kb+1Eq56u9m1 FQEp8zryTm0xKfJd9aw5D5QS5SVzxh1J/GLKytxV0X9KT2ozY6YjqGKjk50v3QOkIpLJ gFvFlh8TVJEn2J7N8GMTa29cVqe7ltlZqihKc=
Received: by 10.227.200.15 with SMTP id eu15mr3221451wbb.77.1318614234102; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:43:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.180.80.134 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:43:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <A2CD2D78-BBA1-4DB9-8E01-2B2B0AE0D22C@cybernothing.org>
References: <20110922134311.28658.88510.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20111003005127.09464a50@resistor.net> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C45D9E13@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <CAC4RtVAyyPKjxPqKQKnc5qeFh-88KOT7NL0846gRTMOb9zL0rg@mail.gmail.com> <3266F4FF-761B-4A12-8F68-7F7F8EBC3090@cybernothing.org> <CALaySJJGwGparJZVxnTZUWZfU+RyVUcVfg13GPmdvr+4VAzZ5A@mail.gmail.com> <4E97D434.8030402@qualcomm.com> <CALaySJJhshwKu9U6GWPR30+sSmk-QPuuQADqmWjD5sx08KJxQA@mail.gmail.com> <A2CD2D78-BBA1-4DB9-8E01-2B2B0AE0D22C@cybernothing.org>
From: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 19:43:14 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHhFybpBaUQVTUzG=DQo9Oo6Z7mAWMfJN0n2e7WKWNfDwDW+KQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-jdfalk-maawg-cfblbcp-02.txt> (Complaint Feedback Loop Operational Recommendations) to Informational RFC
To: "J.D. Falk" <jdfalk-lists@cybernothing.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <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: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:43:55 -0000

On 14 October 2011 18:03, J.D. Falk wrote:

> I'm okay with either, with a slight preference for including it in the Acknowledgements section.  MAAWG understands that this kind of boilerplate is unusual for IETF documents.

> Should I submit a new draft with these changes?

I'd still prefer s/the largest/a/ or s/the largest/a large/ or similar.

Others asked about the "non-derivative" blurb, and maybe I missed the
answer for these questions.  What is the idea?  Clearly modifying the
RFC while still claiming that it is a MAAWG document without consent
of the MAAWG makes no sense.  This doesn't need extraneous legalese.

Otherwise the content of the memo is perfectly harmless, if others
wish to create their own "derivative" version, what is the problem?

Please keep the "codify",
 Frank

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email