IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> Thu, 08 November 2012 06:00 UTC

Return-Path: <christopher.morrow@gmail.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 F0FC921F872E for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 22:00:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.58
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 pPL0KmxQQ9qr for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 22:00:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com (mail-ee0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 515FC21F86D4 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 22:00:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ee0-f44.google.com with SMTP id d4so1506697eek.31 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Wed, 07 Nov 2012 22:00:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=hAQaCKQt+UoN+DKH2Potfz0C4OFs1nyKhAjqQvpK9H0=; b=FkinkrNsigv5giBZen4czvHb9phRkYgd4OEhi75vQW8MBvXs/vWt0+YNgYdRvU4iEv rKiEgnmF3zKSpCi6AHsWuTIRGFfEdRCSeQDE19SMnVwNkr7OBPo8irSnUGmeHpJqChmb K/n6jExeX7NfNYP557ClWR8ldO1qdNzPRIU4HhMsao+slEtkJ0NAEUtYlmLjtBLaJNch RbAKQBcx4bwR61r48LjHzpF64t8KemeBFrWg5OvUhAFJMo7pOWsk/b5p83oNbq4ctZDb hykStO3Sl/CoekRq7ft/DilFqNZ/kM7mQoEy5MsalO0z/xVsKHeXhXxOT34UenqHQ2yA 4sTw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.14.175.71 with SMTP id y47mr23837427eel.36.1352354436087; Wed, 07 Nov 2012 22:00:36 -0800 (PST)
Sender: christopher.morrow@gmail.com
Received: by 10.223.177.71 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 22:00:35 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <E7882632-509C-45A4-AA4F-EA681B4A2541@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>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 01:00:35 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: F7nMG8Zk78EAexyMP8McXS11JcY
Message-ID: <CAL9jLaYFZQyds5GW81Ja=Ctodmz_rwD6RNe-+Ztto4uOwXwHcg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: Byron Ellacott <bje@apnic.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: 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: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 06:00:39 -0000

On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Byron Ellacott <bje@apnic.net> 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
>

ok, i suppose my point here is that there's a bunch of discussion,
there's a draft that got chattered about quite a bit. having the wg
talk about it a bit more formally (which could just wither away to
nothing in the end) doesn't seem to hurt.

> Have the chairs reconsidered that declaration of lack of WG consensus, or adopted the draft despite a lack of WG consensus?
>

yes, apparently.

> 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.
>

that was the thought. again, maybe in the end it ends up not getting
published... like:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-bogons

it happens somewhat often, no harm though, near as I can tell.

-chris

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email