Re: [tcpm] WG Adoption of draft-zimmermann-tcpm-undeployed-01
Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Thu, 20 November 2014 17:01 UTC
Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40F271A1B92 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 09:01:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.494
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.494 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594] 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 GrTio6Q6Wlby for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 09:00:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from darkstar.isi.edu (darkstar.isi.edu [128.9.128.127]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1DC01A1B40 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 09:00:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.9] (pool-71-103-148-202.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.103.148.202]) (authenticated bits=0) by darkstar.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sAKH09xc016774 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 20 Nov 2014 09:00:12 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <546E1E19.3080100@isi.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 09:00:09 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pasi Sarolahti <pasi.sarolahti@iki.fi>, "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" <tcpm@ietf.org>
References: <CAFECC36-C907-40C8-BEB9-44B2EECF0F21@iki.fi>
In-Reply-To: <CAFECC36-C907-40C8-BEB9-44B2EECF0F21@iki.fi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/wAsmAQqtGDbecISs-CspI41l-RU
Subject: Re: [tcpm] WG Adoption of draft-zimmermann-tcpm-undeployed-01
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 17:01:00 -0000
On 11/19/2014 3:15 AM, Pasi Sarolahti wrote: > Hi, > > The TCPM meeting last week supported adoption of > draft-zimmermann-tcpm-undeployed-01 (Moving Undeployed TCP Extensions to > Historic and Informational Status). This mail is to check that people > who did not attend the meeting are content with the meeting consensus to > adopt the draft. ... I'm OK with this document as a WG item, but as a point of order, I am not. The email list is the primary venue for WG decisions. Any events off-list are at best a reason to ask the list, but it is the list that decides - not those who attend a meeting. In particular, the list needs to exhibit a positive "rough consensus" on this decision. If the list is largely silent, then the decision must be "no". Joe PS - sorry if I'm jumping on a note that wasn't intended to side-step process, but it's how these queries are worded that participants end up sensing how the IETF operates.
- [tcpm] WG Adoption of draft-zimmermann-tcpm-undep… Pasi Sarolahti
- Re: [tcpm] WG Adoption of draft-zimmermann-tcpm-u… Scheffenegger, Richard
- Re: [tcpm] WG Adoption of draft-zimmermann-tcpm-u… Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] WG Adoption of draft-zimmermann-tcpm-u… Pasi Sarolahti
- Re: [tcpm] WG Adoption of draft-zimmermann-tcpm-u… Pasi Sarolahti