IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Mtgvenue] document status, the role of the iaoc, and enforceability

Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@nomountain.net> Tue, 31 January 2017 17:12 UTC

Return-Path: <melinda.shore@nomountain.net>
X-Original-To: mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8599712A000 for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:12:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nomountain-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 wsBM5uibriX7 for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:12:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x231.google.com (mail-pf0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E27712A00C for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:12:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x231.google.com with SMTP id y143so108614209pfb.0 for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:12:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nomountain-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to; bh=0gs+F7BxUFQNgB7QoEjWJZSUL6ysP2SNodOAAtj+nAE=; b=iUmKP4QJtaEpIZd7OaJbTH1H61S8FhowtS2UM7CH1hR6jxh7ORJKMu6k4Jlzm7fFYG B1+ALrUTMtbX2MDO8X1xjLL76W6/XucJrFzqeJqymIP1QLfQ32KdZy7Q0mI76d3PUbg9 e/XYoaycQ3J6tEDbWwGD8UI4hibbp+npkBLJXzb0pzI1N2G7Sf+DWZIp1hkxv0zoN1QJ eR8yAK7o8mx9p76T/Sjz8I5lvJIWuwxi64GzJnUR8+DdxSu4x066spMabpaIZFjWbZEk 0SuEkrBsZHgD7ySOSujPU96wEKNuiBWXzbK1L7Abf89nMysML6cvk+7UudaAXXKcukRO 4EUg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=0gs+F7BxUFQNgB7QoEjWJZSUL6ysP2SNodOAAtj+nAE=; b=PV0rEp6TnASgeVPBQ4Sg8KPfJ+gwChiByDM3vIltjDprdwXyirTPleWvNinaU85TXB HH712r7H++sNudiKTI9U7LyfzzUSG71oiAdOOls2drFle2Rch6Z8mWaRe+mTfkUSshMr 1GjlzMXNrZMF5Ic/P6U5bGx8JNO6qBcp9V1qdcd5nUDOBJoNhH/4q9KlFR2q1cm13ZUR upFbKo7t3GGFBWL4l+YH0HpTURKO5o1ZNoxCzF/EfxvNCvsB24rUNQdNzXWUg4VEUXtM 8ZguZw8kY4GMk+oODF+gy7h5sb4IfV6Uk3OkOIuLHubhpJo6K6c8k4o1hVD+v5QUAUhw VOLA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXI2Ohulb5I91vk3vHiueWmzjQqIMvMmvyRZsAff8RszAg14nNoT4VWPEI/jnnDnmw==
X-Received: by 10.98.192.72 with SMTP id x69mr30592470pff.129.1485882767406; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:12:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Melindas-MacBook-Pro.local (74-124-96-230-radius.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [74.124.96.230]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l25sm42625173pfb.24.2017.01.31.09.12.46 for <mtgvenue@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:12:46 -0800 (PST)
To: mtgvenue@ietf.org
References: <d064ed7c-abf6-68e6-584d-03d5354ee09f@nomountain.net> <1827bf44-e4d9-f436-e9d1-19da74029bfb@cisco.com> <a10c850a-9a95-fb77-5d99-931a08c38a32@dcrocker.net> <26a07748-4cfc-ba42-e3e8-d08b153ce10d@gmail.com> <a103fecb-42d6-c509-f861-7d9f8e2844d7@cisco.com> <eac54506-bcec-7937-917e-93ec7fb50205@gmail.com> <5e656192-ed8d-6ae8-625e-a2cd82e552f4@cisco.com> <A71C99EB-2772-4CD5-A480-2DDC9CB22FF2@piuha.net>
From: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@nomountain.net>
Message-ID: <fa1ab38b-9dca-3555-5a20-1c35741c39c9@nomountain.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:12:45 -0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <A71C99EB-2772-4CD5-A480-2DDC9CB22FF2@piuha.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="LHNTM7JJv1qHbdbiA8eoAnOmOeudm7WaT"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/XFw9bYLGMQd_Qpk979T-9_Aw9Pc>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] document status, the role of the iaoc, and enforceability
X-BeenThere: mtgvenue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for email discussion of the IAOC meeting venue selection process." <mtgvenue.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mtgvenue>, <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mtgvenue/>
List-Post: <mailto:mtgvenue@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue>, <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 17:12:52 -0000

On 1/31/17 6:39 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> I’m fine with Brian’s text, but I’d like a small tweak:
> 
> "While this document uses these terms and these meanings, it remains the
> responsibility of the IAOC to apply their best judgment. The IAOC accepts
> input and feedback both during the consultation process and later (for instance
> when there are changes in the situation at a chosen location). Any
> appeals remain subject to the provisions of [RFC4071].”

Are there any objections or further tweaks to this language?

Melinda

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email