IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Last-Call] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-crocker-inreply-react-10.txt

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sat, 13 March 2021 00:16 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 7989D3A0C94 for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 16:16:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 UhQkytJQol3G for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 16:16:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 480A83A0C8A for <last-call@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 16:16:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1lKrxd-000AWa-2k; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 19:16:53 -0500
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 19:16:46 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, last-call@ietf.org
Message-ID: <450E2B52B2520442E44CF18C@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <8779f860-00b0-ed3e-da21-9b3fb82b17e8@bbiw.net>
References: <161522093129.10499.13819896737540561946@ietfa.amsl.com> <5d879b74-b5e9-a147-0c8e-2829bc77bd16@bbiw.net> <8779f860-00b0-ed3e-da21-9b3fb82b17e8@bbiw.net>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/O0-DtX35txaQ9BOs7N0GwS8TG2g>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-crocker-inreply-react-10.txt
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, 13 Mar 2021 00:16:56 -0000


--On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 09:21 -0800 Dave Crocker
<dcrocker@bbiw.net> wrote:

> On 3/8/2021 8:32 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> Diff:
>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-crocker-inreply-react
>> -10
> 
> 
> Are there any significant concerns that this version does not
> resolve?
> 
> If so, please explain how their resolution is essential to the
> utility of this document.

Dave,

I noticed in comparing -08 and -09 with -10 that you had added
an acknowledgment for Ben, but not for Patrik, Martin, or
myself, each of whose comments appear to have motivated changes
as large or larger than Ben's.   Given the requirement of
Section 5.6(a) of RFC 5378 / BCP 78 as well as what I have
understood to be the principle of being generous about
acknowledgement, may I reasonably assume that was an oversight
rather than a deliberate omission?

thanks,
   john

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email