IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] Should RFC-7996-bis be an IETF document in an IETF WG?

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Fri, 31 January 2020 19:05 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.com>
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 4FEBFF40714 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 11:05:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.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 icrY7Zg1YMCe for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 11:05:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96047F406CC for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 11:05:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0122330.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 00VJ3KrS004313; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 19:06:03 GMT
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=YXqsIYzhGC3ysibkQ4cO7YTHlku8nDFu/kcjeKArwec=; b=cFNuLCRsxrLMZWiH3ZVBYqzzQ7kkJ6AnFklPNrqkkdgttJKI2xFsfDm7Oe3fvF3nNs0n HdLtNLkWyJsYOh/7JsqO7AA82TsPeFXLD4ozROW8IBi09sc3cXLHgiRlrOjhUQg4GWS5 qfQ0m/eAcyE99V5of+OKPqaKqkPk11e3DB1CtgZLJ/Do8q1W8ElyZzdgpa7AaD7ijVUz lSlITjk4382FPLVJhqTW9DXn7fWFX8W24jA3VG8WoKHtDytLaX0vM7PCz/gmSB6FpFEJ gpDByGNIQI/lcPkdyqJmVUXFmG/tTxzb5jI6aDSN+5MlDdi0DChx3rUCCfBlavbrpqe7 jQ==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint1 (prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com [184.51.33.18] (may be forged)) by mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2xuwe9u9dh-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 31 Jan 2020 19:06:03 +0000
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id 00VJ28oC016057; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 14:06:02 -0500
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.30]) by prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2xrhw0g97k-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 31 Jan 2020 14:06:02 -0500
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB3.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.103) by usma1ex-dag1mb3.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.103) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 14:06:01 -0500
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB3.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.103]) by usma1ex-dag1mb3.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.103]) with mapi id 15.00.1473.005; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 14:06:01 -0500
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
CC: "rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
Thread-Topic: [rfc-i] Should RFC-7996-bis be an IETF document in an IETF WG?
Thread-Index: AQHV1hTp6DsGQcxKDkWsE+Hhk5NP+KgA1ZoAgAAmD4CAADmvAIAA7ooAgAMC6IA=
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 19:06:00 +0000
Message-ID: <13AE361D-B598-448D-9878-F92E173FDB00@akamai.com>
References: <2ca97fdd-bd7d-3758-1be6-dacd6517c0af@gmail.com> <264786fd-4096-31b8-5af2-ed6176f8db21@gmx.de> <CAA=duU2b5gQEtdpmgYzMbvsc0HzR28Ob6PurMT3fygnGC6uLVw@mail.gmail.com> <eaecdc48-1234-ebf4-5240-676622916d7f@gmail.com> <7EC1BFFF-D787-454F-9499-41057EDBE7DE@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7EC1BFFF-D787-454F-9499-41057EDBE7DE@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.21.0.200113
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.19.117.189]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <EF7A66586FBFCF4BB6226FAFAC80485B@akamai.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2020-01-31_05:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=979 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1911140001 definitions=main-2001310155
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138, 18.0.572 definitions=2020-01-31_05:2020-01-31, 2020-01-31 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 clxscore=1011 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=957 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1911200001 definitions=main-2001310155
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Should RFC-7996-bis be an IETF document in an IETF WG?
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>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 19:05:57 -0000

>    I agree for the reasons you state.  I do wonder if it’s time to revisit the question if there should be an RFC Editor stream.  It seems very appropriate for documents like this, the V3 work, etc.   It would cause less confusion.
  
Yes, this seems to make sense.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email