IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Standardization

"Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@wonderhamster.org> Thu, 11 November 2010 16:26 UTC

Return-Path: <spencer@wonderhamster.org>
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 A7E1C3A6A89 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 08:26:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.276
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.276 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.323, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 h62hleeCBKua for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 08:26:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04B443A6A69 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 08:26:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from S73602b (dhcp-771c.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.119.28]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus4) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0M7p5U-1OLZZ91A2q-00vKLw; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 11:26:06 -0500
Message-ID: <AD3066538CCA44C186229C131C6ADCFB@china.huawei.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins <spencer@wonderhamster.org>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
References: <4CD967AD.80605@dcrocker.net> <3486.198.180.150.230.1289445298.squirrel@mail.smetech.net> <4CDB7026.5090903@dcrocker.net><4CDB918C.8090902@dcrocker.net> <1366.198.180.150.230.1289463839.squirrel@mail.smetech.net> <4CDBCBAC.2040408@dcrocker.net><1654.198.180.150.230.1289473837.squirrel@mail.smetech.net> <4CDBD21A.8090208@dcrocker.net>
Subject: Re: Alternative Proposal for Two-Stage IETF Standardization
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 10:25:40 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type="response"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994
X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:Bguvk5iUbNrqfpsDpM/x7JqxlqXTNmhoj/c9SDmqLYP JCuTkIa7O7WXYWyp7C/Muoz5yheuEZW7zZJDuG+KZb6MI+fS3g Ja+jFw8z3xKECOn976b2LI5zYGArzv9Iqdrtrl3kPVPBjp6Lil QXxkHxoKcWZ7DLWLSfbmoSz3++eEatBdtLhyn9hExpXK0WB4LF NFlHgkdsSmS3nGXrKYSqS/xuBRe9Y+NXvVa8LQMjDk=
Cc: 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-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: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 16:26:04 -0000

>> I think it would be sufficient to say something like: The following
>> implementations represent a significant Internet deployment and they are
>> based on the specification in RFC<n>:
>>
>>    -<a>
>>    -<b>
>>    -<c>
>>    - ...
> 
> 
> wfm.

and seems very reasonable to me as well...

Spencer

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email