Hi Warren, I am on travel today, but I expect to read this today or Friday. Can you give me until Saturday?
Thanks, -Ekr On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:07 AM, Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote: > EKR, > I'm planning on clicking the "This document is approved" button before > the IETF101 meeting unless I hear a clear signal that there is > something that you *cannot* live with. > > Thank you again for your Abstain and all of your comments on the document, > W > > On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:45 AM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Warren Kumari <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 3:28 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > Hi, Benoit, > >>> > > >>> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Benoit Claise <[email protected]> > >>> > wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> The way I see it, we're going to fix comments forever. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > Right. But my concern was that the text that we're reading for an > >>> > up/down > >>> > vote can change after we read it, so I should be tracking the > proposed > >>> > text > >>> > changes. > >>> > >>> [ Updating in the middle of the thread as this seems the logical entry > >>> point ] > >>> > >>> ... so, we are not updating the current version (we wanted 7 days for > >>> people to read it), and so will be (I believe) balloting on that -- > >>> but, just like any other document we ballot on, the RAD will pay > >>> attention to comments received and "Do the right thing". > >>> > >>> I believe that EKRs comments are helpful, and Kathleen hopes to > >>> address / incorporate them before the call. I will be putting both the > >>> current (being balloted on) and updated version in GitHub (for a > >>> friendly web enabled diff) so that people can see what the final > >>> version will actually look like. > >>> So, I guess we are formally balloting (unless the DISCUSS is cleared) > >>> on the text as written (-22), but with an understanding that the AD > >>> will make it look like the version in GitHub before taking off the > >>> Approved, Revised ID needed / AD follow-up flag. > >>> > >>> Confused yet? :-P > >> > >> > >> Hi Warren, > >> > >> Thanks for this note. > >> > >> It's too bad that we aren't able to see the proposed revisions at this > >> point, but I appreciate your commitment to working through the > >> remaining issues, and I think we should be able to reach a > >> satisfactory resolution. > > > > I appreciate your Abstain, but, as mentioned, I'm committed to making > > sure that the right thing happens here - a new version of the document > > (-24) was posted on Friday; I believe that it is now acceptable, and > > Paul (the document shepherd) also kindly looked through your comments > > and the changes and thinks it's OK. > > > > I'm sure that you are tired of this by now, but please take a look at > > the diffs (stuffed in GitHub > > (https://github.com/wkumari/effect-encrypt/commit/974db6cb13 > faecbf5b1704c1da580b320843d0b3) > > or on the IETF site > > (https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-mm-wg-effect-encryp > t-22&url2=draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-24) > > and let mw know if the document is something you can live with... > > > > W > > > > > >> In the interest of not forcing everyone to > >> read the document by tomorrow, I'm going to change my ballot to > >> Abstain. > >> > >> Best, > >> -Ekr > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > That doesn't seem up/down. It seems like every other draft I've > balloted > >>> > on > >>> > as an AD :-) > >>> > > >>> > >>> Indeed. > >>> W > >>> > >>> > Spencer > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> >> And we need to resolve this one before the current ADs step down. > >>> >> > >>> >> Regards, Benoit > >>> >> > >>> >> This may not be my week, when it comes to comprehension. At least, > I'm > >>> >> 0 > >>> >> for 2 so far today. > >>> >> > >>> >> Are we still tuning text in this draft? > >>> >> > >>> >> https://www.ietf.org/standards/process/iesg-ballots/ says that the > >>> >> alternate balloting procedure is an up/down vote - we either agree > to > >>> >> publish, or agree to send a document off for rework. > >>> >> > >>> >> If we're still resolving comments, one can imagine that we'd get to > a > >>> >> one-Discuss situation, or even no Discusses, and wouldn't be doing > an > >>> >> Alternate Ballot on Thursday. > >>> >> > >>> >> I don't object to resolving comments (actually, I find that lovely), > >>> >> but I > >>> >> don't know what we're doing. > >>> >> > >>> >> I've never seen the alternate balloting procedure executed (either > as > >>> >> IESG > >>> >> scribe or as an IESG member), so maybe I don't get it, and other > people > >>> >> have > >>> >> different expectations. > >>> >> > >>> >> Spencer > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> _______________________________________________ > >>> >> OPSAWG mailing list > >>> >> [email protected] > >>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > _______________________________________________ > >>> > OPSAWG mailing list > >>> > [email protected] > >>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad > >>> idea in the first place. > >>> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing > >>> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair > >>> of pants. > >>> ---maf > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad > > idea in the first place. > > This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing > > regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair > > of pants. > > ---maf > > > > -- > I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad > idea in the first place. > This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing > regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair > of pants. > ---maf >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
