[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Ecrit] PhoneBCP
I hum against the applicability statement. I cannot see why we need one.
Ciao
Hannes
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ecrit-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ecrit-bounces at ietf.org]
>On Behalf Of ext Marc Linsner
>Sent: 27 April, 2009 15:23
>To: Winterbottom, James
>Cc: ECRIT
>Subject: Re: [Ecrit] PhoneBCP
>
>James,
>
>This is a consolidated hum.
>
>If you don't agree that we need an applicability statement,
>hum against it.
>
>If you agree that we need an applicability statement, but
>don't like the current text, hum against it.
>
>If you agree with the statement as written, hum for it.
>
>If consensus is against the statement, it will be taken out of
>the draft.
>
>-Marc-
>
>
>On 4/25/09 10:19 PM, "Winterbottom, James"
><James.Winterbottom at andrew.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> No, that is totally inconsistent with what occurs in other groups,
>> Geopriv being a prime example.
>>
>> If there is no consensus at the meeting for a change, then
>the change
>> is not to be made until the consensus is reached.
>>
>> There needs to be a hum on this list as to whether any change is
>> required at all.
>>
>> If that hum is in favour of a change, then we can hum on the wording.
>>
>> At this point I would like the chairs and ADs to comment on this.
>>
>> Cheers
>> James
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Richard Barnes [mailto:rbarnes at bbn.com]
>> Sent: Sat 4/25/2009 8:26 PM
>> To: Winterbottom, James
>> Cc: Brian Rosen; Ted Hardie; ECRIT
>> Subject: Re: [Ecrit] PhoneBCP
>>
>> I don't think there are separate hums necessary at this
>point. If you
>> don't think there should be any modification, just hum against the
>> modification.
>> --Richard
>>
>> Winterbottom, James wrote:
>>> 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]
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> --------
>> ------------------
>> 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
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ecrit mailing list
>Ecrit at ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>