[Insipid] Progressing logme requirements
"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Fri, 02 August 2013 09:45 UTC
Return-Path: <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: insipid@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: insipid@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ED4E11E8329 for <insipid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Aug 2013 02:45:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.622
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JUcmeZjpwn4n for <insipid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Aug 2013 02:45:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 678BD11E82FA for <insipid@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Aug 2013 02:45:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-239-2-42.lucent.com [135.239.2.42]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id r729jVfo006998 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <insipid@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Aug 2013 04:45:32 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.111]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id r729jUdA020644 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <insipid@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Aug 2013 11:45:30 +0200
Received: from FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.7.194]) by FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.111]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Fri, 2 Aug 2013 11:45:30 +0200
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "insipid@ietf.org" <insipid@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Progressing logme requirements
Thread-Index: Ac6PZQWgUa72ilUASuuIGhSA03pWuQ==
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 09:45:30 +0000
Message-ID: <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B07AB6E@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.40]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.35
Subject: [Insipid] Progressing logme requirements
X-BeenThere: insipid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Session-ID discussion list <insipid.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/insipid>, <mailto:insipid-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/insipid>
List-Post: <mailto:insipid@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:insipid-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid>, <mailto:insipid-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 09:45:40 -0000
(As WG chair) At the WG meeting we agreed to progress work on the logme proposals. Formally if anyone on the WG list has issues with this, then they should indicate their concerns to the list. Note that no draft has yet been adopted as a working group item. I've had a discussion with the relevant area director (Gonzalo) and he is happy to progress the charter change and the new milestones. The proposed charter revisions can be found at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/slides/slides-87-insipid-2.pdf On slide 9. The way this will be progressed is that Gonzalo has to take the charter change to IESG and the IESG decide whether they can approve the changes directly or whether it needs to go to IETF consensus. My suspicion is that it will be the former. This will occur in September when Gonzalo comes back from vacation. If there is anything in the charter revisions you think should be changed or improved (or indeed rejected) then please feel free to post to the list within that time frame. In the meantime there is no reason why work cannot start on the requirements draft. Please feel free to either comment on, or improve on Peter's document https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dawes-dispatch-logme-reqs/ or to propose your own drafts to meet this need. We will be looking to see what can become a working group draft sometime around the Vancouver meeting timeframe. Regards Keith
- [Insipid] Progressing logme requirements DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [Insipid] Progressing logme requirements Paul Kyzivat