IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Drip] call for adoption for draft-ietf-drip-uas-rid

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sun, 18 October 2020 22:29 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: tm-rid@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tm-rid@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A35683A0EED for <tm-rid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 15:29:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 92HYyMbR6PHl for <tm-rid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 15:29:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E999E3A1059 for <tm-rid@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 15:29:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1067D389AF; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 18:35:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id dCi9zQCDFjkP; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 18:35:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3493D389AB; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 18:35:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6306A375; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 18:29:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Robert Moskowitz <rgm@labs.htt-consult.com>, tm-rid@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <8a549643-dafe-fdee-cd34-c4e9ffdce343@labs.htt-consult.com>
References: <CADZyTkk0zQnZxeDwRMDENd5RkNTE1VzV9V=Cg8bgKWSGmWSHzA@mail.gmail.com> <4258ee1a-f52c-c462-0af9-21c6a94e3245@axenterprize.com> <CADZyTkmu-V0=s+32OLRvhLo+dVc-8+3VFhVU-FEooje_mA0XWg@mail.gmail.com> <d8e510e1-9590-e173-c479-cfef2e0f49d9@labs.htt-consult.com> <CADZyTk=e7=v-6Xu2i0fo-oLq8H_VpOJjZd-MD_iX1OFEHvz9_Q@mail.gmail.com> <ef97aea7-ccbb-e1d3-dd63-d1aa39df87cc@labs.htt-consult.com> <CAKM0pYPyfTjCU_9Z8H-eFDeJy90WyHYFhUrGAP3DWLKy5Ob6jw@mail.gmail.com> <8a549643-dafe-fdee-cd34-c4e9ffdce343@labs.htt-consult.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2020 18:29:09 -0400
Message-ID: <27724.1603060149@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tm-rid/aB9H7i1OgKerQWKU8-FJGgCf2oM>
Subject: Re: [Drip] call for adoption for draft-ietf-drip-uas-rid
X-BeenThere: tm-rid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Drone Remote Identification Protocol <tm-rid.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tm-rid>, <mailto:tm-rid-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tm-rid/>
List-Post: <mailto:tm-rid@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tm-rid-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tm-rid>, <mailto:tm-rid-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2020 22:29:27 -0000


Robert Moskowitz <rgm@labs.htt-consult.com> wrote:
    > My premise is they should not be merged.

I agree.

    > The IETF has rarely been troubled with too many drafts going to RFC (well
    > there have been a couple of cases held up as "Lets not do this again.").  And
    > some drafts are Informational (like Architecture and Use Cases) while others
    > are Standards Track.

There is some push back on use-case-only documents being published.
They are worth writing, but sometimes not worth publishing on their own.

I say, do them.  Decide at the last minute whether to roll them into an
appendix somewhere, or just leave them where they were.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email