IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [yam] [Fwd: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-03]

Barry Leiba <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com> Thu, 04 March 2010 21:43 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: yam@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yam@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F52E3A8547 for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 13:43:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 bVnroz92iplU for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 13:43:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-fx0-f213.google.com (mail-fx0-f213.google.com [209.85.220.213]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39F823A7984 for <yam@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 13:43:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by fxm5 with SMTP id 5so3353649fxm.29 for <yam@ietf.org>; Thu, 04 Mar 2010 13:43:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:reply-to:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=xoB2Jk7bhBWPUAmIMuMRW3d2L6fg9Lduwdb3D07ChQo=; b=sjfKLzxgsPbF0fIqk4uLlFFNl0wownnGD/ukokAkP/bt03s7s34V7u83Qm/vElSvN8 HrHKC78rY1OD2iUALX8JUquB05onmDgUeZu+ZhBvRhFinyXJ1eGAyR87/+XIFrFUCD/F eVjr2Vl2TG2ZB8R75Omt7Pxa7JneDnZxBDgFE=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Iam0smva5XEeaoB56cCaVXFptGD8jGV9yhNvTQKqsRoHYZS2XI2hce7dpYokv7gs7Y N5Vqd2loL4G/y6HEXHUjZJwYmCEfWDGIm2YhxKG20RdAvLZDqb+384z12xqVtEgMwQhy T4qzKQf99bwmfdz4W7G2FPWNWDKBSCbSWfaNc=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.27.70 with SMTP id h6mr868868fac.50.1267739024286; Thu, 04 Mar 2010 13:43:44 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4B8F69BF.1010502@dcrocker.net>
References: <4B8E515A.6060608@isode.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20100303221310.0a1f0c70@resistor.net> <4B8F69BF.1010502@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:43:44 -0500
Message-ID: <6c9fcc2a1003041343y383eb6a4xe0920c7921e59272@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: yam@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [yam] [Fwd: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-03]
X-BeenThere: yam@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: barryleiba@computer.org
List-Id: Yet Another Mail working group discussion list <yam.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam>
List-Post: <mailto:yam@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 21:43:51 -0000

> One argument is that he is suggesting non-normative clarifications.  From
> that standpoint, that seems reasonable to include for yam-related work.
>
> A different argument is that there is, nonetheless, some actual substance to
> the changes and that that is /not/ within scope for yam.
>
> How does the wg feel about this?

This WG participant feels great about having you discuss it with him,
use your judgment, and make a recommendation to the WG about what we
should do.

Barry

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email