Re: alldispatch conflicts
Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Fri, 29 December 2023 16:42 UTC
Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A730C151520 for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Dec 2023 08:42:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mGZmBwMhCLut for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Dec 2023 08:42:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 136EDC14CE42 for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2023 08:42:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 995B51800D for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2023 11:42:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id n9lxOnt0dPME for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2023 11:42:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3CD21800C for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2023 11:42:47 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1703868168; bh=SWNn6rmsKBA4bBypD4WV8hh+FgMKFzq//2LnKcXUrLU=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=v/Sl85HeGDhK01v0SIYjCsLYRL+I5U3ppRwuBHlPcvDWTq3Vbmgdf7uzVUOdvriJq fxaAMXvUuc5njmPqMDDKZvBU12Kcf1Vpnxkx6BVLROMUOP+8EJo3LjRDf7DovDs5Bv QX8tUXpZcEChuUOfMRRLz9B4aFjnaMpUv74ktuo5f/Gx3U4mSIEkJNrxfiljFEVhK4 WLtsS9hAkfgDZILUSshZlM5/I3So7vhvoRRP+lUt7/s18Sw4Qkqz3t8BIl7gsB4XKQ 0ROqRSU8qRwAg88Yve8oic0RYtsZzgjei5N6HvDXP9FCx4nzB49E1V0+bR6yRDnws2 dZwpsiLSUyN0Q==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC0671BF for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 2023 11:42:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: wgchairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: alldispatch conflicts
In-Reply-To: <CAM4esxQGdBq1sn_U_mP1W6B78wqmvC-e4VeM4nTzbbJtoczUoQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4051.1703254553@localhost> <CAM4esxQGdBq1sn_U_mP1W6B78wqmvC-e4VeM4nTzbbJtoczUoQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 28.2
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: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 11:42:47 -0500
Message-ID: <17638.1703868167@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wgchairs/_W0Y6pVIXyjQ293DXR6tkqahwWY>
X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working Group Chairs <wgchairs.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/wgchairs>, <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/wgchairs/>
List-Post: <mailto:wgchairs@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wgchairs>, <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 16:42:54 -0000
I had wondered: > Should session requests that have mentioned > gendispatch,dispatch,secdispatch > as conflicts now mention alldispatch instead? That is not yet a list WG. Or would > you > prefer that we pick one of the existing ones? Martin answered: > The plan is for the system to treat alldispatch as a joint session of the > three groups, so if you declare a conflict with any of them that should do > the trick. So we don't have do anything to update our conflict requests.
- Re: alldispatch conflicts Michael Richardson