IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [yam] AD DISCUSS about Section 8 of draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02 - Message Modifications

Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net> Mon, 22 August 2011 23:52 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: yam@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yam@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E2D021F87F0 for <yam@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 16:52:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.339
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.339 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.260, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8icYIdwQkVzA for <yam@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 16:52:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFB6E21F87D9 for <yam@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 16:52:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.156] (adsl-68-122-69-114.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [68.122.69.114]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p7MNr9Uo016380 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 22 Aug 2011 16:53:14 -0700
Message-ID: <4E52EBE4.9010700@dcrocker.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 16:53:08 -0700
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110822151213.0aea6018@elandnews.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110822151213.0aea6018@elandnews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Mon, 22 Aug 2011 16:53:14 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: yam@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [yam] AD DISCUSS about Section 8 of draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02 - Message Modifications
X-BeenThere: yam@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: Yet Another Mail working group discussion list <yam.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 23:52:13 -0000

On 8/22/2011 3:26 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> The "shepherding AD and the DISCUSSing AD agree that dropping the paragraph in
> question is probably the easiest (and perhaps best) course of action". I haven't
> discussed the matter with Tony yet. My recommendation is to drop the last
> paragraph in Section 8.
>
> If there are any objections, please come up with very convincing arguments. It
> was pointed out that the text is not in RFC 4409. The shepherding AD is
> "inclined to be *extremely* conservative about changes" and I strongly agree
> with him.


This is a pretty classic case of avoiding a problematic Discuss, through an easy 
expedient.

Russ' opinion is understandable.  I also think it is wrong.

But indeed, this isn't worth debating, since the existing text is extremely 
minor, in practical terms.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email