IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Tools-discuss] Tim Polk's No Objection on draft-ietf-proto-wgdocument-states-10 (with COMMENT)

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Thu, 09 December 2010 14:12 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25FC83A6B17; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 06:12:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.558
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.558 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.041, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HTxM4DI1vJ1l; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 06:12:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 401263A694E; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 06:12:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A21A9A47BF; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 09:14:09 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DkxdOMrg0cBy; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 09:14:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [128.31.34.232] (31-34-232.wireless.csail.mit.edu [128.31.34.232]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83A079A47BC; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 09:14:08 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <4D00E437.8010703@vigilsec.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 09:14:15 -0500
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tools-discuss@ietf.org
References: <20101208220838.12463.53600.idtracker@localhost> <047e01cb972e$69049970$3b0dcc50$@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <047e01cb972e$69049970$3b0dcc50$@huawei.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 'The IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Tim Polk's No Objection on draft-ietf-proto-wgdocument-states-10 (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tools-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 14:12:41 -0000

I do not think that clearing a DISCUSS should generate a message at all
unless the content of the COMMENT has changed.

Russ

On 12/8/2010 6:19 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Folks, this subject line looks like a bug to me. 
> 
> The email thread will be about the COMMENT, not about the No Objection
> 
> Cheers
> Adrian
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: iesg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tim
>> Polk
>> Sent: 08 December 2010 22:09
>> To: The IESG
>> Cc: edj.etc@gmail.com; draft-ietf-proto-wgdocument-states@tools.ietf.org
>> Subject: Tim Polk's No Objection on draft-ietf-proto-wgdocument-states-10:
>> (with COMMENT)
>>
>> Tim Polk has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-proto-wgdocument-states-10: No Objection
>>
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>
>> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> In section 3.1, the document state withdrawn is listed but is not defined and no
>> reference is given.  Text was added that indicated this is self-explanatory, but I
>> must be dense since I still don't know what it means,
>>
>> I do not want to delay things further, though, and see no harm in moving forward
>> with this text.
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email