Re: [salud] Finishing up

worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Thu, 17 July 2014 21:01 UTC

Return-Path: <worley@ariadne.com>
X-Original-To: salud@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: salud@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E83001B27ED for <salud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 14:01:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1] autolearn=ham
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 G50Zva5xmv6r for <salud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 14:01:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:44:76:96:59:212]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68B9C1B27DC for <salud@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 14:01:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta20.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.71]) by qmta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id TXdG1o0011YDfWL5EZ1fQ4; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 21:01:39 +0000
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com ([24.34.72.61]) by omta20.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id TZ1f1o00K1KKtkw3gZ1fx0; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 21:01:39 +0000
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com (hobgoblin.ariadne.com [127.0.0.1]) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s6HL1cee011574; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:01:38 -0400
Received: (from worley@localhost) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id s6HL1cu7011573; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:01:38 -0400
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:01:38 -0400
Message-Id: <201407172101.s6HL1cu7011573@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
From: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
Sender: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
To: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
In-reply-to: <CAL02cgTBoaEJ8QBEp52eA-N-TcRBm3awunzY_XXnH-V0D+t-WA@mail.gmail.com> (rlb@ipv.sx)
References: <201407161835.s6GIZMlT021612@hobgoblin.ariadne.com> <CAL02cgTBoaEJ8QBEp52eA-N-TcRBm3awunzY_XXnH-V0D+t-WA@mail.gmail.com>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1405630899; bh=L/ijiY1BDc3QQk5hjsK1FeVMGi/nKHtVKb2D6aevtKk=; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Date:Message-Id:From:To: Subject; b=MKWFfV7EYMPQInkkEmAfNjss3zjiEcx+VC9Q6PKgwN25a8EtCLwHaRxYjaeu354eh JcodPDzx4ulhC/tF7DXq4wRC77VdeXicetEMVdWOBmy/KmC4zG7/ieDZ/u5+di9flp 8tqaNtWbtK049//WzN4G6Wwgno65o+OyPscLHjBd+TKK63nCJIbwxiwrpDJ7oAnUrl ZnFHOklL7Z5uxRnh5vYq7b4YPslH51V8+bxQu5yw4X0esLlbfnY8KxFa+DGwNtOaJ8 oh9bYK8zSkOp2O7m2tlaXTirY254FdZk8gQPcgewBGBjR10uOA6b2r60CN4SUsOHJF O0Yfv1aqKelOw==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/salud/a9G6inNsH-GaKyr-_uO00GR4Joo
Cc: atle.monrad@ericsson.com, salud@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [salud] Finishing up
X-BeenThere: salud@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Sip ALerting for User Devices working group discussion list <salud.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/salud>, <mailto:salud-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/salud/>
List-Post: <mailto:salud@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:salud-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/salud>, <mailto:salud-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 21:01:43 -0000

[as chair of Salud]

> From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>;
> 
> Thanks for keeping this moving.  Glad it sounds like you've got some
> resolutions to IESG issues.

Yes, we believe that the IESG will be satisfied with the revisions.

> I think it's OK to run the WGLC in parallel with the meeting next week,
> especially if you extend it to run a little bit before and/or after the
> meeting.

OK, I will adjust the schedule for that.  Certainly the new WGLC will
run beyond the meeting, because RFC 2026 section 6.1 specifies a
minimum duration of two weeks.

> You don't need to be quite so formal about steps 4, 5, and 6.  You really
> just need to talk to the individual ADs holding DISCUSSes, and once they
> clear, I can approve the document.

OK.  I was unfamiliar with the process.  I assumed that the new draft
had to be re-reviewed by the IESG.  But you tell me that we only need
to resolve the DISCUSSes with each AD individually.  That is
essentially step 4, and we do not need to do steps 5 and 6, those are
replaced with notifying you that the DISCUSSes have been cleared.

Dale