IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rrg] [IRSG] IRSG Review: draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-12.txt

Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> Wed, 01 September 2010 17:32 UTC

Return-Path: <tony.li@tony.li>
X-Original-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DFFC3A6848 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:32:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.913
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.913 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.113, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QZH30YYnbCda for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:32:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.59.243]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A7263A6830 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.19]) by qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 1Q9P1f0010QuhwU5DVZKQZ; Wed, 01 Sep 2010 17:33:19 +0000
Received: from dhcp-171-70-244-91.cisco.com ([171.70.244.91]) by omta02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 1VYn1f00C1z2Her3NVYu9y; Wed, 01 Sep 2010 17:33:14 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
In-Reply-To: <p06240818c8a4306f8425@[10.20.30.163]>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 10:32:46 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <178D06D8-6D46-47EF-9A80-56C4D6DD6521@tony.li>
References: <4C79DB08.5050107@joelhalpern.com> <p0624082cc8a37d3afb65@[10.20.30.158]> <27DFA8B7-630B-4E84-B6B9-8262D6947686@tony.li> <p06240818c8a4306f8425@[10.20.30.163]>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: irsg@ISI.EDU, rrg@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [rrg] [IRSG] IRSG Review: draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-12.txt
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 17:32:53 -0000

Hi Paul,


> Let me drill down a bit on that. Was your process going into this "get consensus; if success, publish the results of that consensus; if fail, don't publish anything" or "get consensus; if success, publish the results of that consensus; if fail, let the co-chairs write up their own views".
> 
> OK, that wasn't really fair. I will assume that the process going into this was "get consensus and publish the results of that consensus" with no thought of failure.


You are correct, the process did not clearly articulate the details in the case of a lack of consensus.  The chairs then proceeded to make lemonade.


>> We've been trying to be as clear as possible about this and it took several passes to get to the current wording.  Any suggestions on how we could wordsmith this?
> 
> That is really between the RG and Aaron, I think. Determine if the process was open, and whether you followed it. If so, simply add a paragraph about the process in the introduction and/or Section 17. If not, maybe try again, even if process fatigue has set in.


Thanks, that sounds good, will add.

Regards,
Tony

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email