From nobody Thu Jul 3 14:45:55 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DD7E1B2A48 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 14:45:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.772 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.772 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OavPUXPy8bgz for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 14:45:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cyrus.dir.garr.it (cyrus.dir.garr.it [193.206.158.29]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B9921B2A3B for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 14:45:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: internal info suppressed Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 23:45:42 +0200 (CEST) From: Claudio Allocchio X-X-Sender: claudio@mac-allocchio5.local To: appsdir@ietf.org Message-ID: User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (OSX 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=garr.it; s=cyrus; t=1404423943; bh=xwyskmilAwG62UxdebRPJ8k+pZHDxlJCfDmKTiwol1c=; h=Date:From:To:Subject; b=qtmrGoQFwgeiQnXbJ4rJSSEyOlHRyIz7JTGlbvsgBo3I45IJs/v7BQCKu1sRl/BdH AaVHO9DMbWmVaPZb/eiNsu+S7j7O4Q1AhDjenmU6qUD8LopcYgYCG0vYTdY6Yr5Ogn QBtng5YZeNIb2IWN0nOc9nUw86TOrTjY9Ej3rXNg= Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/appsdir/DTnBwZLV59JnhNvK3MlbFTmefYE Subject: [appsdir] [apps-discuss] Last Call: (A NULL MX Resource Record for Domains that Accept No Mail) to Proposed Standard (fwd) X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 21:45:48 -0000 well... :-) I think we did a very extensive review on this already, thus... any more answer I suggest we post directly during the last call :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Claudio Allocchio G A R R Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it Senior Technical Officer tel: +39 040 3758523 Italian Academic and G=Claudio; S=Allocchio; fax: +39 040 3758565 Research Network P=garr; A=garr; C=it; PGP Key: http://www.cert.garr.it/PGP/keys.php3#ca ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 12:03:47 -0700 From: The IESG Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org To: IETF-Announce Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org Subject: [apps-discuss] Last Call: (A NULL MX Resource Record for Domains that Accept No Mail) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Applications Area Working Group WG (appsawg) to consider the following document: - 'A NULL MX Resource Record for Domains that Accept No Mail' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-07-17. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract Internet mail determines the address of a receiving server through the DNS, first by looking for an MX record and then by looking for an A/AAAA record as a fallback. Unfortunately this means that the A/ AAAA record is taken to be mail server address even when that address does not accept mail. The NULL MX RR formalizes the existing mechanism by which a domain announces that it accepts no mail, which permits significant operational efficiencies. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. _______________________________________________ apps-discuss mailing list apps-discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From nobody Sat Jul 5 13:25:44 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7775F1B2829 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2014 13:25:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.952 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.952 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mWkG7FvcEyrR for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2014 13:25:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com (wolverine01.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.254]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DD411A063E for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2014 13:25:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1404591942; x=1436127942; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject: content-transfer-encoding; bh=ml5m/aMXZ35jLTRytfz/looLKJNqe9bvd8cijitY+mc=; b=TvfM+Wui7911DyncGbLSskH5oZaSDXOYbgNqPDjc7WugvQLAlCbAP8MW 5bA0upcD0xa6L0c+uwFQwZqAhQdO4VhByIP1J6stf4NWn6rllfa3gAVu8 8slgWSKcKd+73+LcTyXFQHVxtrnww33wW2Gxs/P6nQN+aq5PfxOzQKi0t A=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5600,1067,7490"; a="48064501" Received: from ironmsg04-l.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.19]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 05 Jul 2014 13:25:42 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,608,1400050800"; d="scan'208";a="670722966" Received: from nasanexhc08.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.39.7]) by Ironmsg04-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 05 Jul 2014 13:25:41 -0700 Received: from presnick-mac.local (172.30.39.5) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.181.6; Sat, 5 Jul 2014 13:25:41 -0700 Message-ID: <53B85F42.1070302@qti.qualcomm.com> Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 23:25:38 +0300 From: Pete Resnick User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.30.39.5] Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/appsdir/YAaHxxzskH-LMxHag6A0KBgtDKY Subject: [appsdir] Query regarding where reviews are sent X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2014 20:25:43 -0000 An interesting discussion on the IESG list leads me to ask a question here: Right now, the guidelines for where to send reviews say to send to: To: apps-discuss@ietf.org, draft-name-without-version-num.all@tools.ietf.org, working-group-mailing-list@ietf.org and if it's in Last Call: Cc: iesg@ietf.org What would you say if instead it was, "If in Last Call, cc ietf@ietf.org, unless you're uncomfortable doing so, in which case cc iesg@ietf.org"? In other words, would you think it would be OK to default to sending to the main ietf list, only sending to iesg if you thought (for example) that the review would cause some ruckus on the ietf list and you'd rather not deal with that? pr -- Pete Resnick Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 From nobody Sat Jul 5 14:42:41 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4099F1A0071 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2014 14:42:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.772 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.772 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uKSqcZrEw-Y0 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2014 14:42:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cyrus.dir.garr.it (cyrus.dir.garr.it [193.206.158.29]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7243C1A00D4 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2014 14:42:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: internal info suppressed Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 23:42:34 +0200 (CEST) From: Claudio Allocchio X-X-Sender: claudio@mac-allocchio3.garrtest.units.it To: Pete Resnick In-Reply-To: <53B85F42.1070302@qti.qualcomm.com> Message-ID: References: <53B85F42.1070302@qti.qualcomm.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (OSX 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=garr.it; s=cyrus; t=1404596554; bh=DTLhbtgnbYdzsKzef3sdSnjywhmn5Kx0MNODdcLRwOM=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=AV+TsJbDh+SuA8TGWy4tzA0EE/JEB30h5ypLVaKFmUO1KREoda8F3VuDe/vk7Xv2p OJUPGliHZwDi8CWK6nUDCenVIfx30gtOafHZ/HO0Rq650cHMQVz9Igq4xzWVUPn8q+ NP+p2CfGOZJLn9leU8gAJUx8DnIdEi+ml5T20GAE= Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/appsdir/z7C_8cHoswbeef9KgrzKma_KEDg Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [appsdir] Query regarding where reviews are sent X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2014 21:42:39 -0000 On Sat, 5 Jul 2014, Pete Resnick wrote: > An interesting discussion on the IESG list leads me to ask a question here: > > Right now, the guidelines for where to send reviews say to send to: > > To: apps-discuss@ietf.org, > draft-name-without-version-num.all@tools.ietf.org, > working-group-mailing-list@ietf.org > > and if it's in Last Call: > > Cc: iesg@ietf.org > > What would you say if instead it was, "If in Last Call, cc ietf@ietf.org, > unless you're uncomfortable doing so, in which case cc iesg@ietf.org"? > > In other words, would you think it would be OK to default to sending to the > main ietf list, only sending to iesg if you thought (for example) that the > review would cause some ruckus on the ietf list and you'd rather not deal > with that? Well, given the whole IESG acts on behalf of the whole IETF people, adding the large mailing list instead of the restricted IESG only is nothing wrong. This will, somehow, expose also much more what the varius directorates do, which is positive... What I'm thinking about is the fact that the directorates are there to support the area ADs in their job, and thus the current version of the sugested addressing schema is in line with this (we advise directly the ADs and the whole other ADs), without botherting (to deal with) the whole IETF: in this situation we are the "proviate advisor" of the ADs... If we send reviews to the whole IETF, then we also advise the ADs, but we put a stronger accent on what we do, and somebody might think of this as a more "authoritative" opinion on a draft. So, I do not have (yet) a strong opinion in favour or against... all the best! > > pr > > -- > Pete Resnick > Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 > > _______________________________________________ > appsdir mailing list > appsdir@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/appsdir > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Claudio Allocchio G A R R Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it Senior Technical Officer tel: +39 040 3758523 Italian Academic and G=Claudio; S=Allocchio; fax: +39 040 3758565 Research Network P=garr; A=garr; C=it; PGP Key: http://www.cert.garr.it/PGP/keys.php3#ca From nobody Sat Jul 5 15:37:13 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 656951A0022 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2014 15:37:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.041 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.041 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7NleBLAL3_kq for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2014 15:37:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 877831A0002 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2014 15:37:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.128.166]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s65Mas1l003402 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 5 Jul 2014 15:37:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1404599827; x=1404686227; bh=BPmaLp2OPh1qQjOy3zELuHZXWIXnOcnEwT5YTW6m5h0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=oqBlczBc90rNG/DFuB+B32+xru2Ro2nQV1XsT2BfIdYGrGBSpmK/uxF6SOca+Fik0 M5DEE7X8qRIpL+kiMDDN2KelATfR+GoaE99/CgiJAvyfo3SoNeFZu6baui2Lk8M/S7 2RgvODcysufERw5f6jOcMD7KGFIk2lGvw8cW0LyE= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1404599827; x=1404686227; i=@elandsys.com; bh=BPmaLp2OPh1qQjOy3zELuHZXWIXnOcnEwT5YTW6m5h0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=kQi+f6VolDBIcT9aPyS0Rqd9239QUFmRcr3TqRwvptxkKTMqHkkEZxBn8cbNXIKvz gckpb9IEnOLC+cHZx9lzYIHz0vG5TC09AwYiKdA5bJ3GL/4y/7HfAvmKCUij3Ou0qR RwwjHeX7pZVQhUSDchYjxvt8oVMJMHKw2t7Ahwxw= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140705145442.0b2c8090@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2014 15:36:49 -0700 To: Pete Resnick , appsdir@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: <53B85F42.1070302@qti.qualcomm.com> References: <53B85F42.1070302@qti.qualcomm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/appsdir/JJXwN7mI_bLo9YBzwD5dc-S5zF8 Subject: Re: [appsdir] Query regarding where reviews are sent X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2014 22:37:10 -0000 Hi Pete, At 13:25 05-07-2014, Pete Resnick wrote: >An interesting discussion on the IESG list leads me to ask a question here: [snip] >What would you say if instead it was, "If in Last Call, cc >ietf@ietf.org, unless you're uncomfortable doing so, in which case >cc iesg@ietf.org"? > >In other words, would you think it would be OK to default to sending >to the main ietf list, only sending to iesg if you thought (for >example) that the review would cause some ruckus on the ietf list >and you'd rather not deal with that? The ruckus is not a problem; it's the unpleasantness which is a disincentive. I am okay with sending reviews to ietf@ietf.org instead of iesg@ietf.org. I'll say let's try it if you think that it is a good idea. Best regards, -sm From nobody Mon Jul 7 04:56:06 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE8D81B2830 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 04:56:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.378 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i3Cdq4AORYOC for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 04:56:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-x22e.google.com (mail-ob0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 515FF1B282A for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 04:56:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ob0-f174.google.com with SMTP id va2so4445563obc.19 for ; Mon, 07 Jul 2014 04:56:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cridland.net; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=gPcqhqPHiwnMYhBnpFHNHkbCABimySJ/6x7Exip9rp4=; b=XLkJT8BmV6vpdxMuvqe00li//ed2mMFI2LFhOGtxVPjT4zB49KZMclu8vfMGwcZtnU mlUoCVbtx1vT1sgfsLIMLOkM4UVe5n6TRwtoikjmwVyJvmOtFqAFkPjVO4wijARHMEri gSrN5JtbGZxNIM8uyIV7IwrCluhlO8OylitWM= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=gPcqhqPHiwnMYhBnpFHNHkbCABimySJ/6x7Exip9rp4=; b=c4djIxEwfxg8pv5glKHMVv6wwitHt4VW26c4HLD60PjMIrao8JGHFY7Z1O+Q8BR9KB QmZ5d17svMYvgTnIteY2pQtDWrNrCb4WOStcAm70fUaVlH3obI7vnxHotKwLuijl3e5Y +2hE9lIvXK/fHX550oKqu/KVeI9EPX9t8Ebf5yXUGytdtmlLq4Ge81ukimWv4YiAwxW6 qd8p7QvXwTPfYsE8cpPPyAeGjEWS73fXPe3hDA3kiBq5RCx8drv59Wwb0Pfj9H6NACTZ rsslnirNJzxGS6pWCyijPWJ5oNUtkEYpgSslBj2a6WYYDxrX6PLx7RY96FKCedbTN0TC EhWQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlu0m1hokOK3Ce7JI8Lu7r1J/J6llJ4vr5mzoB5QsXgiMJFlZusAWjoDwh0SlZ1n93PdWMW MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.232.135 with SMTP id to7mr8302390obc.73.1404734162740; Mon, 07 Jul 2014 04:56:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.60.134.145 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 04:56:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <53B85F42.1070302@qti.qualcomm.com> References: <53B85F42.1070302@qti.qualcomm.com> Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 12:56:02 +0100 Message-ID: From: Dave Cridland To: Pete Resnick Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c32812c63b4804fd992883 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/appsdir/SwkMNIB9r5oulZbYDXQ5oLXbDMk Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [appsdir] Query regarding where reviews are sent X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 11:56:05 -0000 --001a11c32812c63b4804fd992883 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 5 July 2014 21:25, Pete Resnick wrote: > What would you say if instead it was, "If in Last Call, cc ietf@ietf.org, > unless you're uncomfortable doing so, in which case cc iesg@ietf.org"? > Do we really want to clutter that list with technical discussion? --001a11c32812c63b4804fd992883 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 5= July 2014 21:25, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com><= /span> wrote:
What would you say if instead it was, "= If in Last Call, cc ietf= @ietf.org, unless you're uncomfortable doing so, in which case cc <= a href=3D"mailto:iesg@ietf.org" target=3D"_blank">iesg@ietf.org"?<= br>

Do we really want to clutter that list wit= h technical discussion?=C2=A0
--001a11c32812c63b4804fd992883--