IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Mon, 02 September 2019 22:31 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 A084C12016E for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 15:31:38 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 T6EeycHlAE2o for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 15:31:36 -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 DAA90120164 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 15:31:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6065B80B55; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 15:31:16 -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 26813B80B55 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 15:31:16 -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 qoWRfM8aOaHa for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 15:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C8F7B80B53 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 15:31:15 -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 x82MVSde036006 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 2 Sep 2019 17:31:29 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1567463491; bh=vTtah7zuSZ5BKm/vdQfDXTFP2yWcyVtkravnhhA41gc=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=jxQoeJgpvdO02OxNg0QtAQeGweuGk3InRZNk+bFeDR9w5j5okXScmYUlM/ebG8jqs q6REfPi49DaelHritRfhv8FQfxe3NSFGsgF7oTrLq/RFnQvJui2BbhvQcMLvXV5cM+ GBrRPWmoQNyN7sbPUN9DrBlPkxduJYXHpFX/rtKQ=
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>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <17ed6d9f-94b9-ad41-de64-28e4f982d2c9@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 17:31:22 -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: <00237fc1-e378-322d-87d7-8e6f27907f2a@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-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6913090526477846407=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On 9/2/19 2:24 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
> On 8/30/2019 3:39 PM, Sarah Banks wrote:
>> Hi Mike,
>> Some thoughts, inline. Speaking for myself. SB//
>
>
> Not really.  Seriously - you're the author of the SOW with the RSOC so 
> this is direct commentary on your work product.
>

I suspect that what she means (since I've made similar disclaimers in 
the past and have seen many others do so as well) is that she's speaking 
without yet consulting with the RSOC or IAB on the related topics, so as 
to avoid confusion between her perspective and the consensus position of 
either of those bodies. If you have a proposal for a better way to 
phrase that kind of thing, I would love for you to offer it up.

/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