Re: Updating BCP 10 -- round two

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 11 February 2015 18:51 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC0341A1A98 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 10:51:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 pGL1__v1NNRk for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 10:50:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDFF01A1AA9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 10:50:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC25B203B0; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:58:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id A56C163A21; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:50:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EA57637F4; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:50:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- round two
In-Reply-To: <54DB8709.1050405@joelhalpern.com>
References: <CAL0qLwbGG2=VgmUWEE6W3D+0qennThqnCP85X0Q85i94meu68g@mail.gmail.com> <6409.1423672454@sandelman.ca> <CAL0qLwYobxBDuE0WG2t+kviGm=Wwj3RJqVh7y0yHH0uX7KWVfQ@mail.gmail.com> <54DB8709.1050405@joelhalpern.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:50:57 -0500
Message-ID: <3777.1423680657@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/uqLEVTtCXSRTG2GebGFNz-V8MzY>
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <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: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 18:51:01 -0000

Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
    > In theory the idea of trying to recognize a broader class of sufficiently
    > involved participants sounds good.

okay.

    > The details did not seem to work for me, but I am happy to wait and see the
    > next version of a specific proposal.

Is it for the formula for remaining eligible, or was it the specific things
that constitute a "contribution"?

Do you think that the things which are a "contribution" should be maintained
outside of BCP10 in some way?


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-