IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Rfced-future] Issue 145 Re: WGLC Review of the draft

Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch> Tue, 04 January 2022 08:58 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@lear.ch>
X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBFA33A1972 for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 00:58:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.089
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.089 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=lear.ch
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 q3ytt-ju2KNJ for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 00:58:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from upstairs.ofcourseimright.com (upstairs.ofcourseimright.com [185.32.222.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 111BA3A1971 for <rfced-future@iab.org>; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 00:57:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPV6:2001:420:c0c0:1011::3] ([IPv6:2001:420:c0c0:1011:0:0:0:3]) (authenticated bits=0) by upstairs.ofcourseimright.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-18) with ESMTPSA id 2048voX72477484 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 4 Jan 2022 09:57:51 +0100
Authentication-Results: upstairs.ofcourseimright.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lear.ch
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=lear.ch; s=upstairs; t=1641286672; bh=Cni/1NVydzJv1WIegNah+Gs+bj64TLPexY78bU2gwDo=; h=Date:To:Cc:References:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:From; b=lQvT3IccplEXIfCH2ltZOG7t3FECsHrIKONyHBLz2mgbn6rMx8CG0nzquRP+el59H iSHrrY+ACiShLWLHuswL8VhAvg53T7KBUtmMLp+TmG+GlaMVlbE+ylclHnUd8Tr2fD r8yHVVjXVcJ1M8uE7hc44tzegoiaRbDNbXWKbH3I=
Message-ID: <3983646a-f1bc-d094-0319-a32dd61e1bda@lear.ch>
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2022 09:57:46 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.4.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Cc: rfced-future@iab.org
References: <CABcZeBO3-q+SMTFNZyeC50eghFs1CJNSLojmr1Zip1g_nsGZHQ@mail.gmail.com> <d7ce7879-2324-69d1-0770-e104aff6c68c@stpeter.im> <CABcZeBMtZUa9cdr6a7znjdMY3UwNPpg2d0d4KwosfmzE1KqmxQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBMtZUa9cdr6a7znjdMY3UwNPpg2d0d4KwosfmzE1KqmxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------cpTe7kIMgBWLHMD1j80iWvva"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/LjyvgzWXtHCp-zJS57PtwX1JNX4>
Subject: [Rfced-future] Issue 145 Re: WGLC Review of the draft
X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program <rfced-future.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/rfced-future>, <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfced-future/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfced-future@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future>, <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2022 08:58:06 -0000

Hi EKR

On 04.01.22 01:43, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>     One way to look at it is that the community call for comment could
>     surface issues that meet the first two criteria, and if so it's the
>     responsibility of the RSAB to bring those back to the review
>     process by
>     raising CONCERN positions. This way, arbitrary community concerns
>     that
>     don't meet the first two criteria can't get special consideration.
>
>
> Yes, that would work for me.
>
So long as it is clear that feedback received as part of a "broader 
review" may shift consensus, Step 6 is the relevant clause. It may be 
helpful to highlight that in Section 3.2.3.

Eliot

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email