Thanks for your note, Ted.

Group, approving this draft now and starting a new "tris" draft right
away does not really make sense. Shall we give Tom a couple of weeks to
put together a revision of the draft and then go through a new IETF LC
and IESG evaluation?

As Ted said, this new process would be easier since the diff would not
be that large.

Cheers,

Gonzalo


On 25/09/2014 1:35 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Sep 25, 2014, at 8:24 AM, Rene Hummen <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
>> just wondering if the decision was made for us, as RFC5201-bis was approved 
>> yesterday:
> 
> The kind of deliberation that you are doing post-IESG-approval on a draft 
> really isn't appropriate.   If there is an error in the draft, you should 
> certainly tell me you need to fix it.   But if you are having a policy debate 
> about something that wasn't resolved prior to the end of working group last 
> call and IETF last call, I'm afraid it really belongs in a -bis document.  
> And that's what this discussion looks like to me.
> 
> That said, the reason I approved the document yesterday was because when I 
> went hunting through my email for comments relating to the review of the 
> document, I didn't find any, because this discussion hasn't been referring to 
> the document.   If there is some *appropriate* fix that needs to be made to 
> the document, I can pull it out of the RFC editor queue or we can address it 
> during AUTH48.   But the sort of changes that would be appropriate in that 
> context are quite restricted.   
> 
> In order to make substantive changes that represent a new working group 
> consensus, we would have to do a new last call and re-review it in the IESG.  
>  I expect that could be done quite expeditiously if the working group decided 
> it was necessary, but you need to tell me now if that's what you want.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec

Reply via email to