Re: [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Wed, 11 July 2018 08:32 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC0B6130DF5 for <rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 01:32:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.79
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no 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=XE1xS+w4; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=F3JiL5mQ
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 EGsUnVMBMqcD for <rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 01:32:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B220012F1A6 for <rfcplusplus@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 01:32:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([197.225.22.168]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w6B8WjGr007670 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 11 Jul 2018 01:32:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1531297975; x=1531384375; bh=T5GmjXAsG5er8p36WFJh77llbCEZjRuZviyt4wU2IIU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=XE1xS+w4aUZzpiwgvhnRAsvAD+qpAHnEg8rLSRotQurHw91JckUsRN4/8Pl+E48Ok qQ4I9b06BeouPwZ2wAHzHLZnIs01F4j7X5nGSj1PkLmMNUFL7v2j+CqAai9NJlp5k6 Zh+Ng0rR9V+AXR3+ius+BiSoksnMRhl6h50rPSog=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1531297975; x=1531384375; i=@elandsys.com; bh=T5GmjXAsG5er8p36WFJh77llbCEZjRuZviyt4wU2IIU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=F3JiL5mQWfCpFiNrarQ5g032l1hWzw0VSCvXKAV/pA+1CLz3lN3PWhVUBDCch7Yfl vEEX62qxd4fgQG4DJgmy9NH5xJAu8IufqJQaCxvAX8w/7U3/EvOsoBtoIbI8q/oD6w 7IKJuoyIRrxoHZiBx3smZPKCY1guRvLKt9HSqfRg=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20180711011740.0c7449a8@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 01:28:08 -0700
To: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joe@cdt.org>, rfcplusplus@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABtrr-WFzgor3s9R=VZ1HG9Vkgj4=khDfpFH3OkV3zxd17oLVA@mail.g mail.com>
References: <CAL02cgQbT8s0493SdbM7Gbw2ZiSV1kMHk+6=Z4BdC2Ky664CNg@mail.gmail.com> <d159dd1f-de0b-d6c5-6430-cd5577e266fd@joelhalpern.com> <CAL02cgSoRyRaR+_s3jne=2593f_mtntm-v7Nn=5rDs1_r96pfQ@mail.gmail.com> <639B8766-A030-490D-8431-C3F9F3EAFCB4@gmail.com> <CAL02cgQQPcoaQqz5XiUYH7DeUvBM617ZjxTVtrEJ68yEwz0pcg@mail.gmail.com> <8B48E5E5-90DC-423F-83C7-9B51A853A1A8@gmail.com> <CABtrr-WFzgor3s9R=VZ1HG9Vkgj4=khDfpFH3OkV3zxd17oLVA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfcplusplus/k17oHLB6h8XKw09TM0E35ZWhvwc>
Subject: Re: [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us
X-BeenThere: rfcplusplus@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: For discussion of the RFC++ BoF proposal and related ideas <rfcplusplus.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rfcplusplus>, <mailto:rfcplusplus-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfcplusplus/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfcplusplus@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfcplusplus-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfcplusplus>, <mailto:rfcplusplus-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 08:33:00 -0000

Hi Joseph,
At 03:05 PM 10-07-2018, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
>However, the document series still baffles me, and I know a lot of 
>folks that squint at IETF and don't understand any of the 
>distinctions we do (I would have answered the survey question as 
>there being only 4 document series). Alissa had the unenviable task 
>at one point of sitting me down and telling me the difference 
>between and ID and RFC, even after I had thoroughly read the Tao and 
>been to a couple IETFs. (The ID we've been working on for a while I 
>even named (incorrectly) when setting up a github repository as an 
>RFC: https://github.com/josephlhall/rfc-censorship-tech ).

The IETF changed its position on Internet-Drafts a few years 
ago.  There are cases where Internet-Drafts have been referenced as RFCs.

As an off-topic comment, the repository states that the discussions 
of the work occurs on the censorship working group mailing list.  I 
could not find that IETF working group.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy