Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Thu, 02 April 2020 17:15 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@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 1ADBD3A094F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 10:15:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.646
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.646 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 Qy5WhXiAL5tL for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 10:15:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-f50.google.com (mail-ot1-f50.google.com [209.85.210.50]) (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 706E23A095A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 10:15:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-f50.google.com with SMTP id c9so4187456otl.12 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 Apr 2020 10:15:28 -0700 (PDT)
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=xaVfeyGh2Y5X1GovIE6HjPcubqwmW6PfkB48Ua7TR3A=; b=d2xTtL9Wirn2kdLzIOaRyOzcbGqHZIVIaXKpq/UOb9rvvwaqQSMWWJ1mHzH479q+i/ opq20EndU6s2SUrrmSbSaBnUMk1kDeqH7+1jqUabH8mA7kbJwRt2Grf+iy5DC8iip3IJ C7j7NCZ43QAQK0jPiChZaIVKLamUomUwD4EAjCa2thRHUEnOlppGAOuUQ8myg8AzQanc OrsKw4u2kuG6hZiyk4jIjRSTNyrYBOaf+lM8SKBgenb8EFfdJSgBPkN6QppUo75284qQ 3pNBClj1pXR0mr0wRfGzHJxQHL02CGr5Sw3F5CXnDFGIvbOuj2YNBlAFE5rQURjSgZ3V Ifhg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuaQOvklBvE3QUN8OCLC1tWT1PW3WcktaKz82X3DIJpcLiCDsFrI SxEINkHh7TMbyQM5NEh9d67Shk431iYZOLS8JJc48Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypLrnzW0neCNsI7j2fxTKGSshVfcDv7H4emWoXb0O0VrZkPvLPwRJ9nlozepXvOxESiJrUFiDuMQtHBKuIhxQws=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:6b98:: with SMTP id b24mr3124187otq.242.1585847727707; Thu, 02 Apr 2020 10:15:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVAhfFLYwzqw6Qch3BpuMvqjZPzFJ5o1iTOwR+yqH8j-Aw@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVCzMPGuunYZBCSh90ddY2kKJ_Hqnot0s1jmhNQ7qT0xkg@mail.gmail.com> <89730DD8-0451-4658-A0CD-83A85E2055FE@episteme.net> <0C31D020-46FA-424E-8FFD-64BBE8F952E9@cooperw.in> <1E702B62-9982-48F2-B8D6-F4F80A8DE168@episteme.net> <20200331184236.GT18021@localhost> <CALaySJ+_+-kf+3nta8LwMiwPmqPmRdOgC7KAnDfeDgx0ThVa-w@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJ+27gcT6x5BcKU1YHHv+xeaXDnxPU0yhtBSULb36VpFWA@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVBy7iVT4NVLw14+=a1ksWrg35q+dsKfs+9r2poiVo3wkg@mail.gmail.com> <0FC773BE-7B20-402C-AC7E-183A321741E0@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <0FC773BE-7B20-402C-AC7E-183A321741E0@gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2020 13:15:16 -0400
Message-ID: <CAC4RtVBjTjOWLMTFvM50DR2piOLQ4jniXTWPunOoMfvdkOzvXw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/uRzdfQq6S0JPiA_6pdKIYIc1Awo>
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: Thu, 02 Apr 2020 17:15:34 -0000

> I read the draft and I support it.

Thanks, Bob.

> One nit:  Should it say that it updates BCP10?

I think it should not, but should be its own BCP.

We need a broader effort to update BCP 10, but this is a one-time
exception.  Publishing it as a BCP is a process formality, but sets no
precedent and won't apply after this year's NomCom is seated.  I think
it would be wrong for it to formally update BCP 10.

Barry