IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Tue, 03 September 2019 04:06 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E71B12021D for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 21:06:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.751
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.751 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.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 Z9QVGkobIZkh for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 21:06:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49BCC120168 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 21:06:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D823BB80EC8; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 21:06:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64563B80EC7 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 21:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vFdge-NzEUxs for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 21:06:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEBF2B80EC5 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 21:06:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Svantevit.local (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x8346Qun092261 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 2 Sep 2019 23:06:27 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1567483588; bh=4ZbMLdGRo+q/2G9B27mYHKhcNuURGxmV6jiv8RnHjzY=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=XYaOFakqKSq5rBfquYpxteuu++HNMSF6xhB1dwQBXiJ+6Hy2+il5zRCI1KtAoOBNl 3dzMcUpGbUIsUKHAlHZa6BEBn28ReaQ1wt0563+hdjYNnJAuKhzt4EGp1oDrSxMDnk Y9dBzVEKY5TLXWXGZJ9UHwXDzrleNHAnFdDFGBr4=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Svantevit.local
To: Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org, ietf@ietf.org
References: <061D2F46-71C3-4260-B203-73B07EB59418@encrypted.net> <5B276430-96A9-44EA-929B-B9C2325AFCA5@encrypted.net> <f9be9982-56f5-bdcc-3b09-13080532ffc5@comcast.net> <D7B6334A-A4EF-4386-905F-86C187E22899@encrypted.net> <00237fc1-e378-322d-87d7-8e6f27907f2a@nthpermutation.com> <17ed6d9f-94b9-ad41-de64-28e4f982d2c9@nostrum.com> <2ac05112-d2e3-5459-d2be-a115b7df935a@nthpermutation.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <54f99685-d33c-7d9d-3a08-f37ff9e3e502@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 23:06:21 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2ac05112-d2e3-5459-d2be-a115b7df935a@nthpermutation.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On 9/2/19 10:17 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
> Someone has to be willing to take and manage the commentary - if not 
> Sarah, then who?    (I don't really care who - I just want to know who 
> gets to decide what goes into the next version and how I affect that 
> decision). 


The RSOC -- each and every one of us -- are carefully reading everything 
sent to rsoc@iab.org, and all comments sent there will be given 
significant consideration when revising the SOW. I presume that most or 
all of us are also reading the input on both ietf@ietf.org and 
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org, although I can't actually speak for the 
other members. In any case, the input you're providing right now is 
exactly how you affect that decision. I really appreciate the specific 
and concrete suggestions you've made so far, as that kind of feedback is 
much easier to incorporate than more generalized objections.

To be clear, the SOW under consideration incorporates significant text 
from the SOW used during the previous several bid processes, and has so 
far been edited by three of us as part of trying to get it into 
reasonable shape for this upcoming bid. So it's fair to say that we are 
likely to jointly manage the commentary.

/a

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email