Re: [yam] getting ready for WG Last Call on draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-00.txt
SM <sm@resistor.net> Wed, 19 August 2009 15:31 UTC
Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
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 997313A69D4 for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 08:31:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.467
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.132, 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 MOtnROnNLpGC for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 08:31:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns1.qubic.net (ns1.qubic.net [208.69.177.116]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB99E3A69F3 for <yam@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 08:31:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from subman.resistor.net ([10.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.qubic.net (8.14.4.Beta0/8.14.4.Beta0) with ESMTP id n7JFVIKI010652 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 19 Aug 2009 08:31:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1250695887; x=1250782287; bh=HjslZXLfvq0bet8tk3AdNcQduwzWeFLXA1Ugp7NCe20=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=3iwz48N6tdbWXxsb5OLHsssQCVqHIIiBLn50lqtdzgP87v3D1zObSGCndFeqEnOqk BwRAIZFDz0zB80OUqF3J5oLsAUXh1dukF97w4dmjccuFirZgEc12J+NQr6iqr9tRx/ cI0iFLdTb6cnKqQVHb/zqqBNqr9nybUhPqINVhX8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=resistor.net; c=simple; q=dns; b=2PSyBfGftSMvnT7BNpFLJTY8ye3cOqw7TV7tI2uF/ursKUDJcu3o7sQs2iCfdAR+G nrj8sN9TVr7CMVHi2hfDn2T9xzQ3hXzZ7ciaVcBcffzxYIFfxm+nSPTGWBTBH15Y2S1 SOtd6fWiY/IlzdsS5ZqFZF20tME7MGhiMGN8DFg=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20090819081015.0411b550@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 08:30:57 -0700
To: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <4A8B095E.6090504@att.com>
References: <20090817150001.589343A6A63@core3.amsl.com> <4A8B095E.6090504@att.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: yam@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [yam] getting ready for WG Last Call on draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-00.txt
X-BeenThere: yam@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
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: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:31:24 -0000
Hi Tony, At 13:04 18-08-2009, Tony Hansen wrote: >How long do we want to have these WGLCs run? Is one week sufficient? >I certainly don't want to go longer than two weeks. > >I'm going to start the WGLC on Thursday. Please comment on the >length to run it. Chris mentioned one week for the WGLC. From a personal perspective, I don't have any problem with that. If I understood the process correctly, there may be two WGLCs, the first one for the evaluation template for RFC 1652bis and the second one for the I-D that goes through the normal procedures. That's a minimum of four weeks. It may turn out to be much longer in practice due to other considerations (see Dave's comment). Assuming the WG wants to keep the combined review period down to three weeks, then there's a one week WGLC and one two-week WGLC. Does anyone have a preference for a one-week pre-evaluation and a two-week WGLC on the I-D, or a different permutation? I'm open to other alternatives. Regards, -sm