> -原始邮件-
> 发件人: "John C Klensin"
> 发送时间: 2019-10-16 00:59:47 (星期三)
> 收件人: "Joel M. Halpern" , "Jiankang Yao"
> 抄送: gen-...@ietf.org, draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration@ietf.org,
> i...@ietf.org, regext@ietf.org
> 主题: R
--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
> 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
rn 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
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review result: Almost Re
> -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-ie
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review result: Almost Ready
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new v
11 matches
Mail list logo
