On Tue, Oct 15, 2019, at 10:17, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> FYI, folks. Does anyone have any thoughts on the better path forward?
Between:
1) Publish errata for 8521 noting that "The bootstrap service registry for the
RDAP service provider space is represented using the structure specified in
S
Earlier today I took this document off the telechat and out of IESG
Evaluation state.
Barry
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 7:30 PM Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker
wrote:
>
> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-11: Discuss
>
> When resp
--On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 14:19 -0400 Barry Leiba
wrote:
>> If we do not have agreement on what the meaning is for the
>> relevant terms, then either
>> 1) The document should not be an IETF consensus document
>> (which even Informational publication is)
>
> Just a point on this: it's no
Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-11: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please
Hello Roger!
From: iesg [mailto:iesg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Roger D Carney
Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 10:42 AM
To: The IESG ; regext@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-18: (with
DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Good Morning,
Thanks for your comments R
I have taking this document out of IESG Evaluation state and put it
back into Waiting for AD Go-Ahead.
Regext working group, please look at the reviews and decide how you
want to handle this. The document clearly needs some updates to
address the comments we have, but in addition the WG needs to
In that case, you are talking about a slightly different case - and one not
nearly so hard to wrap my head around.
It would be rare for an ID to get that far before things went that far south,
but it clearly could happen.
Usually, if the ID was a WG chartered item, I would imagine the WG would
> If (for some reason) it does not gain rough consensus from the IETF as a
> whole (and this
> seems to be an extreme corner case), then it could be published as an
> individual RFC - but
> should be kicked back to the WG to make this decision.
Oh, yes, absolutely that: at the first cut, it will
I have to agree with Joel - but from a different angle.
The "normal process" seems to be that - once an ID is approved at the WG level
by rough consensus - it goes to the IESG and then to the IETF as a whole.
If (for some reason) it does not gain rough consensus from the IETF as a whole
(and th
> If I think about it too much, I end up unable to parse the notion of a
> document published on the IETF stream without IETF rough consensus.
And yet they are there today and will continue to be.
b
___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.i
Barry, I have a real problem with us producing a document with WG rough
consensus, IESG approval, but not IETF rough consensus.
People have been complaining about various markings causing confusion
about the status and meaning of documents. This seems a MUCH worse case
than anything I have se
> If we do not have agreement on what the meaning is for the relevant
> terms, then either
> 1) The document should not be an IETF consensus document (which even
> Informational publication is)
Just a point on this: it's not true.
We have a "consensus" flag in the datatracker, which triggers a
bo
Joel,
Agreed. And that is more or less what my notes of two days ago
said. I apparently went into too much detail about the terms
and the issues with them and the messages apparently got lost in
the noise.
best,
john
--On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 13:52 -0400 Joel Halpern Direct
wrote:
>
If we do not have agreement on what the meaning is for the relevant
terms, then either
1) The document should not be an IETF consensus document (which even
Informational publication is)
or
2) The document should be Experimental, indicating explicitly that there
is ambiguity in the terms, and on
Joel,
Let me try one reason why this should not be Standards Track or,
if it should, it isn't ready. It uses, and is dependent on,
terminology for which there is no consensus definition and that
is used to describe different things in the wild. As I think I
suggested one of my earlier notes abou
FYI, folks. Does anyone have any thoughts on the better path forward?
Scott
-Original Message-
From: Andy Newton
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 9:28 AM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott ; Patrick Mevzek
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Incompatibility between RFC 8521 and RFC 7484
I think option 2 is bet
Regarding the document status, neither of the emails you pointed to
explains why the document is Informational. I understand from that and
other discussions that there is no desire to make this standards track.
As has been noted, publication of usages of protocol by small groups
is normally h
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-11: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Pleas
> -原始邮件-
> 发件人: "Joel Halpern via Datatracker"
> 发送时间: 2019-10-11 06:56:18 (星期五)
> 收件人: gen-...@ietf.org
> 抄送: draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration@ietf.org, i...@ietf.org,
> regext@ietf.org
> 主题: [regext] Genart telechat review of
> draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-11
>
19 matches
Mail list logo
