My point is that because there was no consensus at the IETF, in fact the document should have remained unchanged.
I want a hum first as to whether the applicability statement is required at all. As I have stated more then one I don't believe it is, and no reasonable argument has yet been provided to changed my mind.
So let us first establish with a clear consensus that the applicability statement is required.
I HUM against the inclusion of an applicability statement.
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Rosen [mailto:br at brianrosen.net]
Sent: Sat 4/25/2009 1:04 PM
To: Winterbottom, James; 'Richard Barnes'; 'Ted Hardie'
Cc: 'ECRIT'
Subject: RE: [Ecrit] PhoneBCP
Actually, I think the list hum is whether or not you accept the change, as
proposed, and consider the document ready to send to the IESG. It's kind of
a combination of is an applicability statement acceptable, and is this
particular one acceptable (and are you otherwise okay with the document,
which is implied in Marc's message, but I think important to recognize).
Brian
-----Original Message-----
From: ecrit-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ecrit-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Winterbottom, James
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 4:51 AM
To: Richard Barnes; Ted Hardie
Cc: ECRIT
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] PhoneBCP
So is this turning into a list "hum" as to whether we should have an
applicability statement or not?
ISTM that this would be an appropriate course of action given the lack on
consensus at the actually meeting.
Cheers
James
-----Original Message-----
From: ecrit-bounces at ietf.org on behalf of Richard Barnes
Sent: Fri 4/24/2009 9:32 PM
To: Ted Hardie
Cc: ECRIT
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] PhoneBCP
+1
Ted Hardie wrote:
At 11:23 AM -0700 4/24/09, Marc Linsner wrote:
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ecrit-phonebcp-09.txt>http:/
/www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ecrit-phonebcp-09.txt
At the San Francisco meeting and ensuing list threads, the last issue
around PhoneBCP was whether or not to include an 'applicability statement'.
The hum during the meeting was inconclusive. The draft editor has included
text in this latest version in an attempt to compromise on this issue.
Please review this version and respond by Friday May 1 to the list as to
your acceptance of this change.
Thanks,
Marc, Hannes, & Roger
I support the current draft going forward to publication requested.
regards,
Ted
Content-Type: text/plain; name="ATT00001.txt"
Content-Description: ATT00001.txt
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ATT00001.txt"; size=194;
creation-date="Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:24:11 GMT";
modification-date="Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:24:11 GMT"
Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:ATT00001 5171.txt (TEXT/ttxt)
(003FF52C)
_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
[mf2]
_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]