Re: [Insipid] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-insipid-logme-reqs-12: (with DISCUSS)

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <> Thu, 02 February 2017 07:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 376011293FE; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 23:24:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LsIk-51JpQfo; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 23:23:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AF8C127735; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 23:23:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id w75so4365670ywg.1; Wed, 01 Feb 2017 23:23:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=qdHYfG+lSEX2hLnLTVkem+4APsrsbMsqyhAbl+PihZs=; b=m8KJAS045OD6hBOBwjZlozF5BoVvtujGrtEoe5+CQNXDyckYMdkkEB0DllN1bg4WRA XMElEtkD3l9xTh7zBWZe+s9B/w1jN/ZbP+h0UlOqzo4Eop06zdtdeUu54WO2H17muqW0 U9zVUyJTPVKGTgxNpkaRbvPFbp+j4LBEdWLcHdnifvEDa0Je/i+JhQWdJsWs3UviHEP+ y1mnQCvztTNqo60/J2NzQKzVHk31VxTK3/blXT8dJDBLwBRqqPfw664TYq0EPz8Czo92 B4mpUGGuQafIJcT6dDedcf7CINxBVkjd96ybe0TNTkK4de4hMFCpzV+QXW8/+ieaEEkr PaXA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=qdHYfG+lSEX2hLnLTVkem+4APsrsbMsqyhAbl+PihZs=; b=j7tz4UCX+0AhBaxXHJX0RAy8z83U2IhYSchoLcZ8xlRt1g3zSDpli/8Cr2DMBJzlmx z/56IQGk9WUUinLFhYYWvgj2dUafiQeOBzWJyYTYAJQiqsv1hZLf/LOo11dIk3wIe3hW hlCkmwuNoxeavBLPjvsBUSu9z1HoleOGq+1tEsR872v3+D64Rg++VcKf14PzJWNo4nd3 Kpwfurdg22QsX9AXM1l3thmWDJDDaDyuZAvsIOCLJ/I5rCdfo2ayc5OA//CKngHBa0lA 7xK+jqCNsEAL5s6Bqt1MqyprpdGuxrP179R8zxC2gAkr/UrQcBfpuNZWBYz7nr+4EqdN ppUw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJHqG4cfQwQC8dYlDzX1j7Op57wOquIFfS7ne9jGqxuAaEFwdyMUdX/jN3g2L8QfPmVdhZBDhZDoEeMbQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id q25mr5036884ywa.348.1486020238717; Wed, 01 Feb 2017 23:23:58 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 23:23:58 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 16:23:58 +0900
Message-ID: <>
To: Ben Campbell <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403045eb4047541410547870ceb
Archived-At: <>
Cc:,, The IESG <>,, Gonzalo Salgueiro <>
Subject: Re: [Insipid] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-insipid-logme-reqs-12: (with DISCUSS)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Session-ID discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 07:24:01 -0000

Dear IESG,

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Ben Campbell <> wrote:

> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-insipid-logme-reqs-12: Discuss
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> Please refer to
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Okay, there's 5 obstains, and at this rate may be more by the telechat. I
> can take a hint :-)
> This is a discuss-discuss; I want to talk about the recent guidance we've
> given people for this sort of thing, and how we should address work items
> that were approved well before that guidance was given. Otherwise, I want
> to regroup with the authors and working group before progressing this
> further.

It may also be helpful for us to note as part of that chat, that the
current approval gating for Informational docs like this one happens to be
(as given in

"For an Informational, Experimental, or Historic document, approval
requires one Yes with no Discuss votes. The IESG secretary will refer to
the ballot during the telechat, but there will not be a poll of ADs who
have not posted a ballot position. If there are no Discuss ballot
positions, the Secretariat will ask, "Does any AD object to this document
being published?" If an AD raises an objection, a Discuss position must be
posted at that time."

If Ben was still a Yes and all the rest of us Abstained, the document would
be approved.

Is that what we think should happen?

Curiously yours,