IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Mon, 31 August 2009 18:20 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
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 217CF28C459; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:20:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.729
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.729 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.129, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-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 pxq-bJIjujm0; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A76928C445; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.3.231] (vicuna-alt.estacado.net [75.53.54.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n7VIKjSM064260 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:20:45 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <4A9C147D.8010909@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:20:45 -0500
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Subject: Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes
References: <C6C174ED.18F7E%br@brianrosen.net> <C3564ADC-4C35-4442-A555-A8E27C32B76F@estacado.net> <4A9C11EC.8010709@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A9C11EC.8010709@joelhalpern.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 75.53.54.121 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, 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: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 18:20:53 -0000

Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> And given that these are Independent Submissions, they aren't supposed 
> to be subject to community review.

Given this fact, why is there pushback on the idea that we would 
prominently mark the documents to indicate that they have not been 
subjected to community review? It seems like the kind of thing that is 
of extreme relevance to the reader.

/a

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status