Re: dealing with AD reviews in the week before the IESG call
"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Wed, 12 August 2020 04:34 UTC
Return-Path: <superuser@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 0DACC3A0FC1; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 21:34:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 n8ZDcljEoIY5; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 21:34:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe29.google.com (mail-vs1-xe29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D62553A0FC0; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 21:34:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe29.google.com with SMTP id i129so453629vsi.3; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 21:34:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Ux/FbmWS4ymj2sLH/jVyB6UF6o4NH53ZxabWk2TiMz4=; b=P7Yxy/gMzTf+JQLE0tcTLVBwnALNoSEDAiI4fxg++2bqH8nGPW9lmyiI4ATEeMTQHv DYihFT3AtJT5wo2aNDR0TpzQkO0+W4KUo7EFy1cmIQ884+6PCYDudTyuZEsS3SPnKXth v0h07IeAhmW4hJxUIJBJz6tgspk+FbbAsAowvOaLMLje0GJgtlmvEjl8e4nSXx7yPZTn j5+Ojm0p87Auf6LgyzSPTVoRoDhrI3sBzr4eznJoAzXChXdyNb86rPp+4K0+Zpprwy1e sVEaWvSg1MIjwT0kiM0cFiIIH9DuGevFbwS3usc9PEgXGC8xtpAMXdvPMQA3YSAkytik 3ZOQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Ux/FbmWS4ymj2sLH/jVyB6UF6o4NH53ZxabWk2TiMz4=; b=l9iTxVCIJuO1BONBRaX0JPHjR7TlMyzD9vnsgv77/h4GxMQNhXMqqFsK1+WboqbrhF A88VBR1G3D+ViRlXGTDvGXccB4m9M6mIqcPuC8Dy5wscl1rJ9Wq0lTdw3dFmGUekFLld BQ8BJCAZIo5V4LBp7jdb0gfNWdwh6mJiFb47i8WWW3V0hndyJFFYVtiGtB2/WoLZlqQF 2BSN1c2eBmKhJ1qRI92LtpRIH5PEEUCkKxGLWPHeYru7nCjQji67L2TJOc2t3EDHIXZH AXLs/9F9C2YGgopPuSlLGBhFMf2TzU8C5k8ZXq9BvaHNZbYBzKUeW1T561jGbjMiX3Fk VbAQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5302wWN1HL7cTjU2/4OF0v6Wmd5JyWcYTKYplIUQ+HsieY7Ao/Yf NU7mXcC/I3BZEeCE9H68zuEta5iYKx8gQzGPCtM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw/O8xgAAhQzaw65WAgCIA/Uxt8lFg1SU0RYXNHMt57iAS6BQ0sjT0XWLhHUu9kAk7j4AFuzKGg36FjV9y+27g=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:1305:: with SMTP id 5mr26270998vst.52.1597206850771; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 21:34:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <12164.1596936888@localhost> <CALaySJJUb5jNN1MJiABGGPkagTnJv88n6pnmTmJZjcHd39ayqw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iJWy76XWwtxW6-LxBbFooW3Akp52u=kPVQ5AXuGeaX82Q@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR11MB4366E0C527C06D7E93A41AF3B5440@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <20200810223345.GU92412@kduck.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20200810223345.GU92412@kduck.mit.edu>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 21:33:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwY6zjpn7_yG9SovW6+_Ek4FoJb8LNCzZnK_-O7PVUi2kw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: dealing with AD reviews in the week before the IESG call
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f91e4805aca6b2f6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/s5oOs5R0bNwIBqL2bIJSrEMnzIQ>
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: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 04:34:13 -0000
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 3:33 PM Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote: > That said, you can always ask the AD responsible for the document in > question whether you should upload a new version; they should have a pretty > good idea for the general sense of the IESG at that time. > This. I think the times it's a problem are those where different ADs have reviewed versions that were meaningfully different. In that case, what we're able to discuss during the telechat might be muddled and less efficient than if we all had the same issues in mind. It does all have a way of working itself out though. -MSK
- dealing with AD reviews in the week before the IE… Michael Richardson
- Re: dealing with AD reviews in the week before th… Barry Leiba
- Re: dealing with AD reviews in the week before th… Warren Kumari
- RE: dealing with AD reviews in the week before th… Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: dealing with AD reviews in the week before th… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: dealing with AD reviews in the week before th… Murray S. Kucherawy