- Original Message -
From: Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com
To: Joe Touch to...@isi.edu
Cc: adr...@olddog.co.uk; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 9:31 PM
FWIW, I share Joe's concerns. And Stephen's responses don't really
change my mind.
This document seems to have a bit of
Hello,
Sorry I missed your last paragraph in the snow storm.
So, Adrian, noting the ratio between discussion of this draft on
the IETF list in the last few weeks and discussions of
everything else, how long does professional courtesy to another
IESG member (presumably in combination with
Thomas said:
The crux of the issue is that any attempt at fast tracking is
fundamentally about short-circuiting some aspect of our review
processes.
Speaking as a Gen-ART reviewer, I am indeed worried by this aspect.
I feel I would have to spend much longer reviewing a draft if I
knew it had
Folks,
I'm very much on the same page as Tom, the normal problem we have
is not too much review, it is that we don't have enough.
Running code is valuable, but does not normally replace review.
/Loa
On 2013-01-25 11:02, t.p. wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Thomas Narten
Apologies for responding to recent comments in random order: I'm
travelling and have accumulated something of a backlog.
On 22 January 2013 03:11, =JeffH jeff.hod...@kingsmountain.com wrote:
apologies for latency, many meetings and a conference in the last couple of
weeks.
BenL replied:
On 1
Responses to some points below but I'd really like to ask
people to consider a few things here:
- what's proposed is an experiment, it'd likely get tried out
a few times and won't consume any huge resource anywhere
- its optional, WG chairs that want to try it could, those
that don't can
On 1/22/13 10:31 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
a WG can
skip WG LC if they think its not needed.
???
When was the last time that happened? Did it require a consensus call
to determine?
Eliot
--On Friday, January 25, 2013 14:36 +0100 Eliot Lear
l...@cisco.com wrote:
On 1/22/13 10:31 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
a WG can
skip WG LC if they think its not needed.
???
When was the last time that happened? Did it require a
consensus call to determine?
Chair discretion. It is
John,
On 1/25/13 4:27 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
a WG can
skip WG LC if they think its not needed.
???
When was the last time that happened? Did it require a
consensus call to determine?
Chair discretion [... and five of paragraphs of text]
None of which answered my above questions. When
On 01/25/2013 03:27 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
In the context of draft-farrell-ft, the above makes the idea of
WG LC in parallel with IETF LC either irrelevant or bad news.
If the WG Chair (or AD) concludes that a WG LC is needed, then
the procedure should not be invoked. If a WG LC is not
--On Friday, January 25, 2013 16:31 +0100 Eliot Lear
l...@cisco.com wrote:
John,
On 1/25/13 4:27 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
a WG can
skip WG LC if they think its not needed.
???
When was the last time that happened? Did it require a
consensus call to determine?
Chair discretion [...
--On Friday, January 25, 2013 15:34 + Stephen Farrell
stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
...
All of this points out one of my main concerns. Almost as a
side-effect, the proposal formalizes a number of informal
procedures and mechanisms work pretty well most of the time
but, because they
Hiya,
On 01/25/2013 04:37 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
If I correctly understand the above, it lies at the root of the
problem I was trying to describe. This is really an experiment
if the effect of deciding we didn't want to make it permanent
was that we were at status quo ante, i.e., as if
- Original Message -
From: Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com
To: John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com
Cc: Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com; adr...@olddog.co.uk;
ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 3:31 PM
John,
On 1/25/13 4:27 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
a WG can
skip WG LC if they think
Eliot Lear wrote:
On 1/25/13 4:27 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
a WG can skip WG LC if they think its not needed.
When was the last time that happened?
Did it require a consensus call to determine?
Chair discretion [... and five of paragraphs of text]
None of which answered my above
Hi Martin,
On 01/25/2013 09:36 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
I don't know about the last time it happened, but I know about
one time in Nov-2009 in the TLS WG (now rfc5746).
I recall that and agree with the sequence of events you
describe, but I'm not sure that that situation is
relevant when
Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 01/25/2013 09:36 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
I don't know about the last time it happened, but I know about
one time in Nov-2009 in the TLS WG (now rfc5746).
I recall that and agree with the sequence of events you
describe, but I'm not sure that that situation is
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))'
(draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2671bis-edns0-10.txt) as Internet Standard
This document is the product of the DNS Extensions Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Ralph Droms and Brian Haberman.
A URL of
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Special-Purpose IP Address Registries'
(draft-bonica-special-purpose-07.txt) as Best Current Practice
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.
The IESG contact person is Ralph Droms.
A URL of
A new IETF non-working group email list has been created.
List address: 6t...@ietf.org
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6tsch/current/maillist.html
To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch
Purpose: This list is for discussions relating to the development,
RFC 5011 has been elevated to Internet Standard.
STD 74
RFC 5011
Title: Automated Updates of DNS Security (DNSSEC)
Trust Anchors
Author: M. StJohns
Status: Standards Track
Stream: IETF
Date:
21 matches
Mail list logo
