Re: The RFC Acknowledgement

Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name> Mon, 11 February 2013 21:25 UTC

Return-Path: <ulrich@herberg.name>
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 A018721F8893 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:25:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.733
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.733 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.244, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3L-BRRrWLl1M for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:25:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ve0-f180.google.com (mail-ve0-f180.google.com [209.85.128.180]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DACD521F8831 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:25:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ve0-f180.google.com with SMTP id jx10so5448203veb.39 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:25:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herberg.name; s=dkim; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Sp1uJnjS2Qnz7VIX4Pyx1u2uB2C8Mv3mj62necnZ3aE=; b=rcXUB/UNkF695rpxuLtTgomA51RzvFMLRYJuxQu3edGZKpqnf9Kyh34SW58K53jQRW OnQsCDHLowCe6NC0jQi1l2hykizTtiELQ+6MlZbmPMgYWRWSgXjOyqOZ56FOlOMovj47 eIjWN/tt1wKAx5BTt92g0wQL++H5mwLApRsUE=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=Sp1uJnjS2Qnz7VIX4Pyx1u2uB2C8Mv3mj62necnZ3aE=; b=cj4s5IZcalF6tK+71IZysjx3tada03TpJR2S1Emo9ksF6jST7KFbWiKEMgkRYU9d/q zESB6eywBJY4TM7hWRE+25gVzv2OICtgnAFQdxdtOqRzucDUDbq1rzNRzPfKn14mSY3j C4vXnmJ4SV5wIkSvFZkQXDC0S4q9+bP6vw1vII+rZqqgY9/x/18WH8AHdACyTqEX3mKo wQEOwYZtr/PNh1TnoUh/nDWAtZSCIqoBMtfrHaqWRyRbqQmbNNiYhsmiK3//U3swb65a 8ZMUMQMIaHP4kJ9MOJaDRMzv6W+b26Ky2OGZ/XvJxUIJ+aZqkPMcLmOAHkEBEuH9QZme 3zRg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.220.149.81 with SMTP id s17mr21166547vcv.31.1360617909334; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:25:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.146.199 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:25:09 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130211104011.0b8299d0@resistor.net>
References: <CADnDZ8_E-cDqhXWV-f3MjoDo9hFeCVAdVTmRQ+McA--_3smyJQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAF4+nEFGdiwFiRkVtUQLR6b89c3SdpVcOmHULe35hwd+wg8CsA@mail.gmail.com> <CADnDZ8_wCFNsWXdQv29RpVrFnzZLeuBybaBEPR63OvUxw-ieyQ@mail.gmail.com> <51180ad8.0727dc0a.7e34.ffffeb5cSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <CADnDZ89ckeZzVzU7d_ru=9U9qdhQ=R6rmJRteHDj0SwDw+jv6g@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130211104011.0b8299d0@resistor.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:25:09 -0800
Message-ID: <CAK=bVC9=vmtTvdrj93gMtJA_7yih9BOzQbCURH-2zaVFuoHG7g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: The RFC Acknowledgement
From: Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name>
To: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlz6M3eBXXQn3HLd1b09ypmXNlwZNLHy81TBg7yew/3O2ChMoAIrcOj4MIdGqFjRiMM3uB9
Cc: "Sandra L. Cespedes" <slcesped@bbcr.uwaterloo.ca>, ietf@ietf.org, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 21:25:10 -0000

SM,

(it is generally appreciated in the IETF to use real first and last name).

Generally, I think the topic has been well summarized by Fred and
others, and I don't see how continuing it would generate new value.
See below:

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:28 PM, SM <sm@resistor.net> wrote:
> [...]
> Thomas Heide Clausen commented [2] about draft-cardenas-dff-09 [4].  I don't know the person (zero reputation).  You also posted a review [3].  The first review is clearer.
> [...]
> 2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg77078.html
> 3. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg77089.html
> 4. I glanced at the draft.  Section 2.2 is about terminology.  Section 14.1.1 also mentions terminology.  There are different definitions for "Address".

I am not sure what this is about because it does not seem related to
this discussion. But since I am the editor of the mentioned document,
I still wonder what you mean but "the person [has] zero reputation".
There is a related topic on this mailing list about the mentioned
draft, so I suggest sending your comments as reply to that thread.

Best
Ulrich