IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sidr] WG acceptance call for draft-ymbk-rpki-grandparenting

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Fri, 09 November 2012 16:14 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91BBC21F874B for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 08:14:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.544
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.544 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.055, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pNnF7C4Q+gUL for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 08:14:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from waldorf.isode.com (cl-125.lon-03.gb.sixxs.net [IPv6:2a00:14f0:e000:7c::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E92C21F8618 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 08:14:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1352477688; d=isode.com; s=selector; i=@isode.com; bh=SsD+7vpCXT72U0pzZLtbau+vhQbTHe6BrtbQ4KNQYa4=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=ZLdI9cMDwq/I558VLL9j3R8zFEAheqMaIs+MbKK4ie1wUcwWvHUbuN/tptmJeKo8yM+1FW ks6hxyuJfFFB8qCpNQyNlwds5rDA6na1fPCK8jdA9cO7WDTLuip3kUvNRGngQ7bNMRD60c PAPAHbQRn0xpDzqkQaPVu+VPUSAGcs0=;
Received: from [130.129.18.182] (dhcp-12b6.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.18.182]) by waldorf.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <UJ0r9gBK0qeL@waldorf.isode.com>; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 16:14:48 +0000
Message-ID: <509D2C04.4020704@isode.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 16:15:00 +0000
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
To: Byron Ellacott <bje@apnic.net>
References: <24B20D14B2CD29478C8D5D6E9CBB29F625F6733D@Hermes.columbia.ads.sparta.com> <CC63F9EE.C1A7%andy@arin.net> <24B20D14B2CD29478C8D5D6E9CBB29F625F68471@Hermes.columbia.ads.sparta.com> <CAL9jLaa2GvTQwRW6Y4Un6EHZzBgHJKoGoGe=EybRZfGncFVP2g@mail.gmail.com> <E9226C2E-3288-4A87-A476-4925BF9ADA22@apnic.net> <CAL9jLab6oDmGLsFmt+9AGSA8eC=Q+eJ_HXTr+WVj_1rAcCOkrA@mail.gmail.com> <E7882632-509C-45A4-AA4F-EA681B4A2541@apnic.net>
In-Reply-To: <E7882632-509C-45A4-AA4F-EA681B4A2541@apnic.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "sidr-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <sidr-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, sidr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sidr] WG acceptance call for draft-ymbk-rpki-grandparenting
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <sidr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr>
List-Post: <mailto:sidr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 16:14:50 -0000

On 08/11/2012 05:53, Byron Ellacott wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> On 08/11/2012, at 3:04 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Byron Ellacott <bje@apnic.net> wrote:
>>> Hi Chris,
>>>
>>> When did the WG reach consensus on adopting this draft?
>> when it spent ~50 mesasages discussing it?
>> it seems that, even if we abandon it in the end, discussing this over
>> a draft is a good thing to do.
> When that discussion happened, the chairs declared a lack of consensus for adoption: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg05015.html
Byron and others,
I think WG chairs (collectively) dropped the ball here: 3 of us have 
discussed the acceptance call a couple of times. We would like to 
apologize for sending inconsistent messages.

After talking to various people this week, it looks like the best way 
forward is for the chairs to redo the acceptance call and ask very 
specific questions to keep everybody unconfused and hopefully happy.

> Have the chairs reconsidered that declaration of lack of WG consensus, or adopted the draft despite a lack of WG consensus?
>
> Perhaps there's a problem to be addressed, and if a discussion should happen around that problem, a document describing the problem might be a more useful way forward.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email