IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [iucg] IUser information

Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com> Fri, 26 August 2011 03:51 UTC

Return-Path: <evnikita2@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40B1921F8785 for <iucg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 20:51:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.457
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.457 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.141, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 VfBWgVKEq+wi for <iucg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 20:51:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7366A21F877B for <iucg@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 20:51:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxe6 with SMTP id 6so2455086fxe.31 for <iucg@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 20:52:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type; bh=Y3ypYxO+EKr39qhjtXn7rYNCQsbt+5XAQrYlG4kmuE0=; b=cCekWcvuIlyFiaYACUeDEBhqQpPyIMXzoH5BzXs9Ri3hxY7DqxBhE+i6rtmjZtc+CI vLWHskUXaAc6lC53nPFsL9/ZIVhQ8ToH9jZw3TgzJzs65Ol6v7Bu1db9ANjzTz75qypv pngInlPev8ruU4vqo/TzFf3fbEvJ3tl6PFD8M=
Received: by 10.223.59.73 with SMTP id k9mr826855fah.138.1314330762002; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 20:52:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b14sm985122fab.19.2011.08.25.20.52.39 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 25 Aug 2011 20:52:40 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E5718A9.3040104@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 06:53:13 +0300
From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: iucg@ietf.org
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20110825015847.06e32520@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20110825015847.06e32520@jefsey.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060201090901090407040209"
Subject: Re: [iucg] IUser information
X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: internet users contributing group <iucg@ietf.org>
List-Id: internet users contributing group <iucg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iucg>, <mailto:iucg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/iucg>
List-Post: <mailto:iucg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iucg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg>, <mailto:iucg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 03:51:28 -0000

25.08.2011 4:15, jefsey wrote:
> 3. Russ Hosley (IETF, Chair) puts an official end to the FYI 
> sub-series of RFC destined, by the IETF user area to inform the public

1. This was a decision of the whole IESG; note the draft's name being 
draft-*iesg*-rfc1150bis.
2. Conclusion of FYI seb-series had a formal reason only - absence of 
user services area, which ceased to exist.  Considered that, and the 
issue that RFC 1150 was clear regarding review of proposed FYIs by user 
services area wg, I believe that such decision is fair.
3. If you didn't want IESG to do so, you should have spoken up during 
Last Call.
4. If you didn't like IESG decision, you should have appealed as 
discussed in RFC 2026.

>
> If you have any comment you are welcome.

Why provide comments on already published RFC?  See bullet 3 above.

M. Yevstifeyev

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email