IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Lucy Lynch <llynch@civil-tongue.net> Tue, 10 September 2019 13:47 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 36580120897 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 06:47:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.656
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.656 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.543, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 FY1_-9Suyeac for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 06:47:32 -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 8E52312013F for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 06:47:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41E77B82232; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 06:47:30 -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 D6608B82232 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 06:47:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
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 UxfPfZ9i955v for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 06:47:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hans.rg.net (hans.rg.net [IPv6:2001:418:1::42]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 451B6B82231 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 06:47:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.20.5.164] ([67.135.90.2]) (authenticated bits=0) by hans.rg.net (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x8ADlNvL081593 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 10 Sep 2019 13:47:23 GMT (envelope-from llynch@civil-tongue.net)
X-Authentication-Warning: hans.rg.net: Host [67.135.90.2] claimed to be [172.20.5.164]
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Lucy Lynch <llynch@civil-tongue.net>
In-Reply-To: <85f156b5-ad48-520d-a416-6c838b6d6174@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2019 21:14:05 -0700
Message-Id: <F98BE7A6-6EB7-472D-9E3C-D64CE203C8E5@civil-tongue.net>
References: <ec715385-93ca-ddf0-f9b1-d0e4ae1666fe@nthpermutation.com> <f3edd70c403583ab560888be39001d14.squirrel@www.amsl.com> <09bb6e35-bafa-90d9-fe35-e2feb21e6564@nthpermutation.com> <85f156b5-ad48-520d-a416-6c838b6d6174@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16G102)
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Try this: was Re: 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>
Cc: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org, IETF Discuss List <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>


Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 9, 2019, at 7:11 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> With that fix, Mike's draft looks pretty good to me.
> 

I agree - this is much closer to what I’d expect to see if I was looking at this job as a potential candidate 


> Regards
>   Brian
> 
>> On 09-Sep-19 06:57, Michael StJohns wrote:
>>> On 9/8/2019 2:25 PM, RFC ISE (Adrian Farrel) wrote:
>>> Hi Mike,
>>> 
>>> With my ISE hat on...
>>> 
>>>> I also added an "optional deliverable" to cover April fool's RFCs.
>>> While the ISE in some sense sits under the RSE, I believe that the 4/1
>>> RFCs are the responsibility of the ISE, not the RSE.
>>> 
>>> Operationally, the ISE has always asked the for an opinion on candidate
>>> documents, but the final decision has been with the ISE.
>>> 
>>> I don't think you need to include this in the SoW.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Adrian
>> 
>> OOPS!   Noted and easy enough to remove.
>> 
>> Let's see where/if this goes first...
>> 
>> Mike
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> 

_______________________________________________
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