Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings
ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com Sat, 19 July 2008 23:24 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 2D9613A6851; Sat, 19 Jul 2008 16:24:18 -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 13DBC3A6851 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Jul 2008 16:24:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.64
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.64 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.022, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=0.044, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HOST_EQ_STATIC=1.172]
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 p8I942G5bhRU for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Jul 2008 16:24:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (dsl-66-59-230-40.static.linkline.com [66.59.230.40]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 304CB3A67F7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Jul 2008 16:24:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01MXCH3AF8CW00DT7P@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf@ietf.org; Sat, 19 Jul 2008 16:24:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01MXB1HLX5YO00007A@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ietf@ietf.org; Sat, 19 Jul 2008 16:24:45 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:22:19 -0700
From: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com
Subject: Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:43:24 -0400" <7B5EBC1D8D79E279C207A2C5@p3.JCK.COM>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Message-id: <01MXCH38R09600007A@mauve.mrochek.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
References: <043101c8e8ec$fa67c650$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> <200807181819.m6IIJCIR025085@mta6.iomartmail.com> <048401c8e924$ab2ce600$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> <XFE-SJC-211BBtNtxy0000033b7@xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com> <4881CFF5.3090008@piuha.net> <1EFD708A-8509-42A6-BBC9-824C27A7DCFA@multicasttech.com> <6BA8110C64663A4908066554@p3.JCK.COM> <01MXC0962CLI00007A@mauve.mrochek.com> <7B5EBC1D8D79E279C207A2C5@p3.JCK.COM>
Cc: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, 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-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
> Ned, > While it seems otherwise, I don't think our suggestions are > really inconsistent. Let me summarize a way to combine the > radical and the more radical: > (1) Assume, right now and restoring an historical > principle, that an AD has the right and obligation to > waive the cutoff in situations that AD considers that it > is important enough to the process to just get a draft > posted to do so. I think we are agreed about that. To the extent it relaxes the rules and helps as an interim measure, sure. But we need to keep in mind that every cycle we take away from ADs to do this sort of thing is time that could better be spent on something that's actually useful. > (2) As soon as convenient, initiate a discussion about > updating the posting cutoff rules so that they are > consistent with today's realities. I hope that the IESG > can lead that discussion, or find someone to lead it, > and that we can have a new plan in place well before > Minneapolis (it is too late to implement anything for > Dublin anyway). It would be a shame to have to initiate > a formal process experiment for this, but that option is > available too if the IESG doesn't feel like it wants to > take the lead but is receptive to a proposal for change. > I think it makes less difference whether I'm right and > _some_ sort of nominal cutoff is a good idea or you (and > maybe Spencer) are and we should just do away with the > cutoff than that, to paraphrase Scott Brim, we don't > [continue] to treat decade-old rules that have been > overtaken by events as dogma or Received Wisdom. Yes, on this we agree. Ned _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Adrian Farrel
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Russ Housley
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Adrian Farrel
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings James M. Polk
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Jari Arkko
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Spencer Dawkins
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Scott Brim
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Marshall Eubanks
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings John C Klensin
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings ned+ietf
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings John C Klensin
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Scott Brim
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings John C Klensin
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Russ Housley
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Jari Arkko
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Dave Crocker
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings John C Klensin
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Steven M. Bellovin
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings John Leslie
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings ned+ietf
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings ned+ietf
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings ned+ietf
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings ned+ietf
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Dave Crocker
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings ned+ietf
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Dave Crocker
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Spencer Dawkins
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings ned+ietf
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Spencer Dawkins
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Pete Resnick
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Russ Housley
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Dave Crocker
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings John C Klensin
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings ned+ietf
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Spencer Dawkins
- RE: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Eric Gray
- RE: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings ned+ietf
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings John C Klensin
- Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Ned Freed
- RE: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings Eric Gray
- RE: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings ned+ietf