IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational-02.txt> (IETF Stream Documents Require IETF Rough Consensus) to Best Current Practice

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Sat, 25 January 2020 05:48 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3D9F12004E for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 21:48:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.635
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.635 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS=3.335, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
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 aXB5v8S9ro_s for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 21:48:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFD6C12006B for <last-call@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 21:48:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 484Q6W57VCz6GF00; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 21:48:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1579931315; bh=CVPeD6Bvg7h7Sf2DbX05m+JKvOsxS2Hgvt4ubJiYC8Y=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=oBRKPNC4Jz0pQARt9STmQpZZ5ybF425ISxw6MP6WEEE5dAHyefxBp4LgyhIMwQU88 uZ3K/wD6rOGV3Zwr/Ts0mbul55lXuKLh6WwXBeTABEywb3JGdoVOgbdrdx8KDwwMiB VlHfdfDq0iMj5osKhRoyGXynk9KHP7Qui1BjRcSY=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 484Q6W0qrjz6GDyt; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 21:48:34 -0800 (PST)
To: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Cc: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, last-call@ietf.org
References: <CAChr6Sy5-ejdjw5zgZgiF1hSyuiAErmas-dbWFmx1b+1vftT1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBOMVYpEYaEUzYsa0ApDfGtA6oD5P67A40=HQVBN+yTuKQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAChr6Sz7vihWaoeG8H11JzQ5YqrbYLPLneuY3PD4syMYEaKQ4w@mail.gmail.com> <99d34ee9-8ea6-a77f-39fc-f1889a050358@joelhalpern.com> <CAChr6SwHd2=Qf2SSbQeKs1CS_c1UuBqPEtO_x4MmF71iv0zE9Q@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMdonehuZ3re4UnGY2_B6A2sOBqkoE+m4SfBa8N3vYEhg@mail.gmail.com> <CAChr6Sw1LSXj=L2WAu=R1QfBi4UFDXC5Z6EODqwJ6-z9o5Z5vw@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBPBhGZDxnh2p=trL8yHveBiMsy38+-G_7oQu_eR+45d5w@mail.gmail.com> <CAChr6SyNTsz9uZNiN16OHLj6e=Xhcn1A8pr105Of+y_Jw8HSFw@mail.gmail.com> <994c4462-ef24-6d46-3bec-8aa5e14b9f78@joelhalpern.com> <CAChr6Sy80-74g4cgKESwmdn3WSNjU_2XsjkChH9_8-ELnytC_Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <7829860d-7f8e-8c6b-e2c2-189e0946e35e@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2020 00:48:33 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAChr6Sy80-74g4cgKESwmdn3WSNjU_2XsjkChH9_8-ELnytC_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/4r9_HmOGdQAJ70Rqpops3iKettI>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational-02.txt> (IETF Stream Documents Require IETF Rough Consensus) to Best Current Practice
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2020 05:48:37 -0000

You seem to be looking for some categorization other than what the 
document says.  I am unclear why.

The document states clearly that it applies to all Informational and 
Experimental documents on the IETF stream.  (I suppose I might have 
written one for standards track, but it is not needed as the rules for 
that are already clear.)

Yours,
Joel

On 1/24/2020 11:25 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 7:31 PM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com 
> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Rob, this document deliberately addresses a very narrow issue that
>     while
>     admittedly rare has come up a few times.
> 
> 
> It would help if you could describe the documents your draft applies to:
> 
> Document Classes Reviewed by the IESG
> 1) Protocol Actions
> 2) Document Actions (WG)
> 3) Document Actions (Individual)
> 4) Document Actions (from RFC-Editor)
> 
> I'm assuming the draft does not apply to #1, since those would not be 
> Informational or Experimental. If the draft is not intended to apply to 
> #4 (even as an "end run"), that would be helpful to state.
> 
> That leaves #2 or #3. If the draft is concerned about #3, I think it 
> should state what the IESG is to do if the draft reappears as individual 
> submission.
> 
> If the document is about #2, that would be good to state as well.
> 
> thanks,
> Rob

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email