IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Mon, 02 September 2019 15:28 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 0782B120020 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 08:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.752
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.752 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] 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=opendkim.org header.b=m4pieVrk; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=dY5Z+qv9
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 QlpdOo6ZnP_U for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 08:28:34 -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 54387120024 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 08:28:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54B67B81226; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 08:28:14 -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 8743AB81226 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 08:28:12 -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=opendkim.org header.b=m4pieVrk; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=dY5Z+qv9
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 tYUx1QIyr38Z for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 08:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 885E3B81225 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 08:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.115.197.107]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x82FS6iC027056 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 2 Sep 2019 08:28:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1567438098; x=1567524498; bh=s4Fd8CfT1VUWDVn8lJRuMlwl9HAQ+E1+YePQzP58gsA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=m4pieVrkFXwKC8vRlcEkIMj31+fYQNat++4fhjvFMI6kMUhXsy2uuQjPvizj7apED 7niU5dRmyPQ8ZnXkmdzMar5S/qVWS+rWWJFYm0eiSjMW08d55FsdeW5iE1HhJReEA4 Irf8nWcNt52nlw/ZGYo3EP75zc7zTfXpIhEqVzhc=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1567438098; x=1567524498; i=@elandsys.com; bh=s4Fd8CfT1VUWDVn8lJRuMlwl9HAQ+E1+YePQzP58gsA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=dY5Z+qv9SG3MHEboibQ+zifBl6l2lhGtSOA2aoDxoabqszwDBnWmhsn+b1ubAF3yE uhc54ZlZtgyOGt4N0PvkstBIryVk9rSpm9wb6nDj90tMAyKPF+ZHtX6W4hydHKFRC/ gIYR+PBreumCcyAJoF5ejvqNBZTX2J6ctkbf7+fY=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20190902080418.10e6ae50@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 08:27:15 -0700
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <a1072b71-326b-07ed-e6a7-0293a03786aa@gmx.de>
References: <4675DA5C-0CFE-4E02-980D-770B17907D35@encrypted.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20190830124138.08d4ab38@elandnews.com> <5dd85c7b-84d4-9192-db70-28e61ed3bf01@nostrum.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20190830214019.0ba94918@elandnews.com> <740F4638-B988-4FB3-97EE-8EAEF366D521@akamai.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20190831082218.0ba64748@elandnews.com> <FD1BA644-68A7-45E9-BAC7-16FB75F7D1FD@huitema.net> <02e801d56023$a7de6730$f79b3590$@augustcellars.com> <a1072b71-326b-07ed-e6a7-0293a03786aa@gmx.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] 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: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

Hi Jim, Julian,
At 04:43 AM 02-09-2019, Julian Reschke wrote:
>On 31.08.2019 19:43, Jim Schaad wrote:
>>So the piece of mail from Russ makes for an interesting starting point for
>>discussion of what you believe this new person should be doing.
>
>Excellent point.

Yes.

>>Is this the type of decision that this new Temp RFC Series Manager supposed
>>to be making?
>
>Hard to say until we have a concrete timeline about when v3 is properly
>defined (not only implemented), and when we plan to have a v4.

There are some decisions which may have a long term impact.  Either 
there is a decision on who is going to make those future decisions or 
the discussion can happen if/when the future decisions have to be 
made.  In my opinion, the second option is not a good alternative.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy 

_______________________________________________
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