From stpeter@stpeter.im Wed Jan 4 09:12:33 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B2B821F860F for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 09:12:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.128 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.128 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.529, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M7njREqazsCS for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 09:12:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81E0B21F860D for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 09:12:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from normz.cisco.com (unknown [72.163.0.129]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 500894009B for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 10:21:11 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <4F04887A.8020408@stpeter.im> Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 10:12:26 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: appsdir@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4 OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc X-Forwarded-Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [appsdir] Fwd: Request For IETF 82 WG and BOF Sessions Agenda, Minutes, and Presentations X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 17:12:33 -0000 I'm happy to see that no AppsArea WGs are on this list. Good work by the chairs! /psa -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Request For IETF 82 WG and BOF Sessions Agenda, Minutes, and Presentations Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 09:07:50 -0800 From: Wanda Lo To: WG Chairs CC: irsg@irtf.org Dear WG Chairs and BOF Chairs, I am in the process of compiling the proceedings for IETF 82 and we are still missing meeting minutes from various sessions. The cutoff for correction submissions cutoff is tomorrow, *January 5, 2012*. Please upload meeting minutes, as well as any presentations from your sessions, at your earliest convenience using the Meeting Materials Manager found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/cgi-bin/wg/wg_proceedings.cgi. Alternatively, you are welcome to send them to proceedings@ietf.org or wlo@amsl.com for manual posting. Groups I still need minutes from are: Internet Area -DHC -PCP -SOFTWIRE -TRILL Operations and Management -MULTRANS (BOF) -RADEXT Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area -AVTCORE -AVTEXT -CODEC -P2PSIP -VIPR Transport Area -TSVWG https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/82/materials.html If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks, Wanda =========================== Wanda Lo / Project Manager Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) 48377 Fremont Blvd., Ste. 117 Fremont, California 94538 / USA T: +1.510.492.4082 F: +1.510.492.4001 _www.ietf.org _ /--/// Managed by Association Management Solutions (AMS) Forum Management, Meeting and Event Planning www.amsl.com From johnl@iecc.com Thu Jan 5 22:40:03 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56AEB11E80AE for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 22:40:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.835 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.835 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.236, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pq0ZOrxPsITT for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 22:40:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90B6B11E8076 for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 22:39:58 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 92145 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2012 06:39:56 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 6 Jan 2012 06:39:56 -0000 Date: 6 Jan 2012 06:39:34 -0000 Message-ID: <20120106063934.80082.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: appsdir@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120105165019.063fa0a8@resistor.net> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Cc: sm+ietf@elandsys.com Subject: Re: [appsdir] [apps-discuss] Feedback on draft-moonesamy-rfc2369bis-01 and draft-moonesamy-rfc2919bis-01 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 06:40:03 -0000 >for feedback from a mailman developer and other MLM implementors. Hi. I guess I'm a defacto mj2 implementer. >>1) Have the original authors of these documents been contacted to >>see if they want to > >I emailed to the original authors. If anyone has an up to date >contact for them, please email me. Josh Baer is easy enough to find, once you know he's the one in Austin, not the art critic. General comments on 2369bis: It's basically fine, but I have a few suggestions. As an editorial matter, the constant harping to use mailto: everywhere gets old. I'd suggest saying it up front and noting that mail users aren't necessarily able to use any other kind of URI, then drop it. The other 99.9% of mail users, of course, find a web page a lot easier than trying to send mail and hope for a response. Section 4 seems obsolete. Does anyone use nested lists any more, at least nested lists visible to the users? The idea used to be to save bandwidth by sending one copy of a list message to an exploder closer to the users, but I don't know anyone who still does that. You can get pretty much the same effect by sorting the deliveries by target MX, and then send one copy per MX with multiple MAIL TO. Appendix B strikes me as MUA user interface design advice by people who know nothing about UI design. I'd just drop it, or replace it with a short note that the plan is for MUAs to recognize and interpret the list headers and use them to present a list management interface to the user that matches the rest of the MUA's interface. >>3) The deletion of Appendix A from RFC2369 is conspicuous. Why >>remove all of that supporting discussion? Because it's not very interesting any more. I suppose you could put in a sentence saying that the design discussion in RFC 2369 may be useful to help understand the design of list headers. >>7) In 3.5 of RFC2369bis (and of its antecedent), the "There is no >>need" sentence seems odd. If the MUA is supposed to use >>"postmaster" to contact the owner in the case of a list that doesn't >>add this, what domain name should it use? I agree that's wrong. Just add the fripping header, please. >I have not tested whether existing implementations bounce user >generated messages which contain List- headers. mj2 typically deletes and replaces them. In theory it could recognize and bounce, but I don't know anyone who's configured it that way. Comments on 2919bis: In sec 2, the list ID is typically a hostname in the domain of the list itself, not of the list owner. I run lists with addresses like listname@lists.gurus.org, but I as the owner have an address in another domain. In sec 3, most of the places it refers to the MUA are at least as applicable to the MDA. I do all of my list sorting at delivery time, not in the MUA, and I suspect a lot of SIEVE users do the same. Sec 7, I still think nested lists are dead. >Subject tags are commonly used as list identifiers (this mailing list >uses them). Appendix A.1 explains the difference between a List >Identifier and a subject tag in terms of uniqueness. If I have to >provide an explanation, I would have to get into mail filtering, e.g. >why use List-ID instead of subject tags to move messages from this >mailing list into a separate mailbox. I'd just point out that the subject is associated with the message, not the list. As a concrete example, if I send a personal reply to the author of a list message, the subject will still have the list tag, but it won't have a list-ID. R's, John From sm@elandsys.com Fri Jan 6 11:54:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A40A21F887C for ; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 11:54:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yB1yt9aXxBty for ; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 11:54:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C52821F8876 for ; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 11:54:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.232.119]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q06Js1eq026447 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 6 Jan 2012 11:54:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1325879653; i=@elandsys.com; bh=k+fgA2bpTM8fdyYN1/tzNQUR5WwzAkSbYxoHuA4rPjo=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=Gzr6h3H6Iudjh0u/o2ZgVSunQqqUfk1/iQDLKZFaXtmMVwv44AoCz9PuOOEs+OA4X 5RUXpF5d+e1MQCaxmvp5OIv3jswe2Lh1DSQmLbDjGKSdTn517zulm+M70n723b5uJd 0WrZaH6HJgQFDQkIRouDQ7oLuymc2ERweL2Mq7Ok= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120106115001.0aa46bf0@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 11:53:44 -0800 To: Glenn Parsons From: SM In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20111209091103.0aade1c0@elandnews.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20111209091103.0aade1c0@elandnews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: [appsdir] Reminder: review of draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-04 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:54:20 -0000 Hi Glen, The review of draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-04 was due on December 30, 2011. Can you perform the assignment within the next few days? Best regards, -sm From johnl@iecc.com Sat Jan 7 20:41:01 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 847A721F84A5 for ; Sat, 7 Jan 2012 20:41:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.474 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.474 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.734, BAYES_20=-0.74, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QnoHeg0wIlkX for ; Sat, 7 Jan 2012 20:41:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F00AF21F849A for ; Sat, 7 Jan 2012 20:41:00 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 15239 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2012 04:40:58 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 8 Jan 2012 04:40:58 -0000 Date: 8 Jan 2012 04:40:36 -0000 Message-ID: <20120108044036.40477.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: appsdir@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120107114742.0ba21628@resistor.net> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Cc: sm+ietf@elandsys.com Subject: Re: [appsdir] [apps-discuss] Feedback on draft-moonesamy-rfc2369bis-01 and draft-moonesamy-rfc2919bis-01 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 04:41:01 -0000 >Nested lists did not disappear because of a definition. It is >because people do not know about it, that they prefer simple things, >or that the sites that used it no longer have a need for it. Nested lists were an imperfect way to do traffic management, with the idea that the addresses on each sublist were "close" in some sense to the sublist's exploder. That made sense back when lists had a mixture of uucp, BITNET, and Internet users, or when the connection from the US to Japan was slow and expensive, but these days nobody cares. It's the same reason that we no longer make a big fuss when people use MUAs that put 100K of ugly stationery on their mail. I'm not adamant about removing it, but it does seem to provoke more confusion than useful advice these days. R's, John From johnl@iecc.com Sun Jan 8 08:47:30 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E96EB21F8530 for ; Sun, 8 Jan 2012 08:47:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.17 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.17 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.571, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mpUyVxkkwQsY for ; Sun, 8 Jan 2012 08:47:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F13021F850C for ; Sun, 8 Jan 2012 08:47:29 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 6321 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2012 16:47:27 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 8 Jan 2012 16:47:27 -0000 Date: 8 Jan 2012 16:47:05 -0000 Message-ID: <20120108164705.41788.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: appsdir@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Cc: msk@cloudmark.com Subject: Re: [appsdir] [apps-discuss] Feedback on draft-moonesamy-rfc2369bis-01 and draft-moonesamy-rfc2919bis-01 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 16:47:31 -0000 >I still don't understand why it's there. I know what it's telling me and I believe it's correct, but I >don't understand how someone using this document (to write an MLM or a compliant MUA) would apply this >information. That is: "OK, so subject tags and List-ID have different uniqueness properties. Now what?" I think the point is to explain why subject tags aren't an adequate substitute for List-ID. But I agree that it doesn't really need to be there. If you want to identify your list, use List-ID. If you want to mess with subject lines, be my guest but there's no standard to say what you should or shouldn't do. R's, John From johnl@iecc.com Sun Jan 8 08:52:51 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3160221F8534 for ; Sun, 8 Jan 2012 08:52:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.019 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.019 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.420, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EwYTWGcVbc86 for ; Sun, 8 Jan 2012 08:52:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C04F21F8531 for ; Sun, 8 Jan 2012 08:52:50 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 8993 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2012 16:52:50 -0000 Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 8 Jan 2012 16:52:50 -0000 Date: 8 Jan 2012 16:52:28 -0000 Message-ID: <20120108165228.43264.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: appsdir@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Cc: msk@cloudmark.com Subject: Re: [appsdir] [apps-discuss] Feedback on draft-moonesamy-rfc2369bis-01 and draft-moonesamy-rfc2919bis-01 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 16:52:51 -0000 >> There is a discussion about variable substitution in Appendix A.5 of >> RFC 2369. It explains why that was not added. I'll leave this comment >> open. > >It could well be that there isn't any demand for being able to do this (or as John mentioned in REPUTE, >Apache mod_rewrite makes this kind of thing unnecessary). I'm pretty sure the motivation was the desire to do something like this: List-Unsubscribe: mailto:majordomo@example.com?body=unsub%20 These days since it's considered normal to send a customzed version of the message to each subscriber, the variables can be substituted in at the sending end, and you don't need a standard for that. R's, John From sm@elandsys.com Sun Jan 8 09:36:25 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DABF21F852D for ; Sun, 8 Jan 2012 09:36:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.716 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.716 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.117, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J4arfCWY9vSu for ; Sun, 8 Jan 2012 09:36:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B777B21F852C for ; Sun, 8 Jan 2012 09:36:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.232.164]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q08HZwZl001765 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 8 Jan 2012 09:36:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1326044177; i=@elandsys.com; bh=06hTSgqsCmAIreZqPtULfXtrQBVYXBRsCUUKOuh5ifI=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=AhfLB5EB6c5w3Aw+zaX8iRTh0KpvKYdJ0wFNoKOLffrcAsG+dXnMFKHWWs1FM20Nv uhpzKWpk/+DY8jMmMYwgXU3jZ7drUArOvuwjD5msJ7GbrewIs5rC/EeI45b2v8p3On O1leDkfhcmJpGs1POA0eUuyOK/CREyBraWQWnmq8= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120108085514.097c88b0@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 09:35:21 -0800 To: John Levine From: SM In-Reply-To: <20120108164705.41788.qmail@joyce.lan> References: <20120108164705.41788.qmail@joyce.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: [appsdir] Messages to appsdir mailing list (was: [apps-discuss] Feedback on draft-moonesamy-rfc2369bis-01 and draft-moonesamy-rfc2919bis-01) X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 17:36:25 -0000 Hi John, I noticed that two messages about my two individual submissions were copied to the appsdir mailing list. The appsdir mailing list is generally used for internal discussions by members of the Applications Directorate. The archive of the appsdir mailing list is publicly accessible at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/appsdir/current/maillist.html As you may note from the content of the messages in that archive, most of the discussion is about administrative details, e.g. assignment of reviews. The Applications Directorate uses the apps-discuss mailing list for all technical discussions. This is to encourage open discussion and for anyone to be able to participate in the discussions. As I am one of the moderators of the appsdir mailing list, I have the technical means to filter these messages. It would be unfriendly of me to do so. I prefer to talk to you in case there is a misunderstanding, a technical glitch, etc. Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Mon Jan 9 20:39:37 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B800211E80D1 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 20:39:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8XJTnU+I-IsA for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 20:39:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92EE811E80A4 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 20:39:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.238.103]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0A4d8HE010497 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 9 Jan 2012 20:39:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1326170363; i=@elandsys.com; bh=GLHmUcy3atlcw6agmUdsL7p5aiHcinXgcLzWBjzN9OE=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=htH5OYVBRvbMJFD6BDGvLMzDfbGROAul1htZxuMNMs6Gkvin7wbWaDei3yFWdxYEw hBmWIvr06ivoezLs3Itm/YeusC7etwNC7UK2UTJenOOkRLip9hJAZ6x2KP92S/Sbv1 aT7qIrY/OPn3tj+3u4nfyZvsv4nohZDMXxjAocJI= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120109202245.0b05c918@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 20:23:58 -0800 To: Glenn Parsons From: SM In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120106115001.0aa46bf0@elandnews.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20111209091103.0aade1c0@elandnews.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120106115001.0aa46bf0@elandnews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [appsdir] Reminder: review of draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-04 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 04:39:37 -0000 Hi Glenn, I'll do the review of draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-04. Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Tue Jan 10 07:45:00 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A439F21F85F8 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 07:45:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.692 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.692 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.093, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w++9TT1qUVt5 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 07:44:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82ABD21F85E0 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 07:44:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.250]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0AFi508009775 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 10 Jan 2012 07:44:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1326210265; i=@elandsys.com; bh=0iIAIlYVm2P/qLgTtdURy9oQi1co5QIUP/9Ia7oSwTY=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=Ruc7GcljWmDEqunFVAzuZRja5oXakz1uJaKsQtZJIW8A1DmDmcm/lRHW0xKd8yutM N2Qbh/r/2eZyp0iSv6OoL5KQYEYkrtIMYMUbBnzGH2M4TX1/hNL0Aa2KTWwS52dnga HfeuG/fsxm3e6sz6TYjjNg7sp+wcnzIxK4EUCviY= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110074123.08db23e8@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 07:42:49 -0800 To: Alexey Melnikov From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-kucherawy-authres-spf-erratum-01 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 15:45:00 -0000 Hi Alexey, Could you review draft-kucherawy-authres-spf-erratum-01 before January 20? Please post your review to apps-discuss and DO NOT post it to appsdir. Thanks, -sm From alexey.melnikov@isode.com Tue Jan 10 07:53:55 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3958C21F85FD for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 07:53:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.4 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.199, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IiuHqSw+8Drn for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 07:53:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from rufus.isode.com (cl-125.lon-03.gb.sixxs.net [IPv6:2a00:14f0:e000:7c::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F75F21F848B for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 07:53:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1326210833; d=isode.com; s=selector; i=@isode.com; bh=Q72isb4WVHRomvnwkmBPO50+HI8IO0ip+vFZGFppXg4=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=ae3LEEKiwlyw4p30sESjl7cJN1FPso77LZOIayHdF0vbsq3MMh4Q9WfIoUbUm9VYOkRebC B/LsjmcpwUM71ASNksBIHOig8cZBeBtV2JfmJ2iHAs1PHA2W5s1iZVNK4RNjbeUJ7DLGx9 4SXpj1VvEwzFlmMcqqPMLtL2iUnvlmI=; Received: from [172.16.1.29] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 15:53:53 +0000 Message-ID: <4F0C5F22.7090805@isode.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 15:54:10 +0000 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 To: SM References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110074123.08db23e8@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110074123.08db23e8@elandnews.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-kucherawy-authres-spf-erratum-01 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 15:53:55 -0000 On 10/01/2012 15:42, SM wrote: > Hi Alexey, > > Could you review draft-kucherawy-authres-spf-erratum-01 before January > 20? Please post your review to apps-discuss and DO NOT post it to > appsdir. Hi SM, Will do. From sm@elandsys.com Tue Jan 10 14:02:27 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8650011E8085 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:02:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.568 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.196, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YD3zW3H0Yur9 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:02:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFD5E11E8083 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:02:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.250]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0AM25wM006265 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:02:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1326232942; i=@elandsys.com; bh=ZPvnUpOhrbJZWbMr1fQaaonU6QcmRDUEwl+mK4oUL+Q=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=SL3wot2i1IqcLvNCCRnQfvtsA/HT71sFR5QrKAe44XWIxQwPD/cKxINGGibOeg3sk aCFJN1vKYBzDD9nbr7f7fjXpvUbHhZlOqnRPJPEdMVl0zl98j4aVaq0tntL+mDG5++ qHX2E8r6xw/oxcgsh7+7wEDTvwLikgGVnegUFVyU= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110134812.0cb28278@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 13:51:02 -0800 To: John Klensin From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-decade-reqs-05 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:02:27 -0000 Hi John, Could you review draft-ietf-decade-reqs-05 before January 20? Please post your review to apps-discuss (see below), and DO NOT post it to appsdir. The review should be sent to apps-discuss, the authors, the WG Chairs and document shepherd, if applicable. You can use the tools alias draft-ietf-decade-reqs-05.all@tools.ietf.org to cover the authors, WG chairs, and shepherd. If your review recommends significant changes to a working-group document, you should also consider copying the working group's mailing list. Suggested distribution: To: apps-discuss@ietf.org, draft-ietf-decade-reqs-05.all@tools.ietf.org Cc: iesg@ietf.org You can view the Apps-review template at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/template Some previous reviews are accessible at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/tracker Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Tue Jan 10 14:02:27 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91DE411E8083 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:02:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.67 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.071, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rNaLFKxzTnUZ for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:02:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A92E11E807F for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:02:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.250]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0AM25wK006265 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:02:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1326232938; i=@elandsys.com; bh=6++zNqhjmcYK3UmfMwLirVFzHbIkMopxwpy1bYd7tJ4=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=kqstEwvoqBZFIhx9vBWMDeqhSHfx0nFqSbf4cekGk3iWlZpwXlAyW96n61ahG4aHi 9eD0/OMeAX8vXh3f0qphUO1Pz+vghI9vXFzf9GGfUkHfconEh73TOLKElGdLLgZvdb QDp3m1zoCVgm8TYbVD7uHkRTUpVU1U23b+kxYMR8= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110134605.0cb27fe8@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 13:48:10 -0800 To: Carsten Bormann From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-decade-arch-04 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:02:27 -0000 Hi Carsten, Could you review draft-ietf-decade-arch-04 before January 20? Please post your review to apps-discuss (see below), and DO NOT post it to appsdir. The review should be sent to apps-discuss, the authors, the WG Chairs and document shepherd, if applicable. You can use the tools alias draft-ietf-decade-arch-04.all@tools.ietf.org to cover the authors, WG chairs, and shepherd. If your review recommends significant changes to a working-group document, you should also consider copying the working group's mailing list. Suggested distribution: To: apps-discuss@ietf.org, draft-ietf-decade-arch-04.all@tools.ietf.org Cc: iesg@ietf.org You can view the Apps-review template at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/template Some previous reviews are accessible at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/tracker Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Tue Jan 10 14:30:03 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 639B821F875E for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:30:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.667 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.667 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.068, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DykFOlFGxlIn for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:30:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8C4F21F875A for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:30:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.250]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0AM25wS006265 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:02:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1326232955; i=@elandsys.com; bh=2r+VBWKhebUjZsmLDM6zVy4aDJlwL8P6G9RaqqjVonU=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=enQJ/+WqW9nan1gpnogUBzpCto4coAIOH0DLrIjPnJra+/Wh8hg7b9pgl8bUILFUZ t9mpqAs+uZxPwS4XWSpmyfNiF99XPOqvrLMSPhIoyq0wkEpapu18Z2xbhJqKGKzTG0 zsN4y1zL6iAH0YeWqVKet/7MxKN6aaCzSDogjvPQ= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110135442.0cb28a28@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 13:56:26 -0800 To: Salvatore Loreto From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-avtcore-srtp-vbr-audio-04 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:30:03 -0000 Hi Sal, Could you review draft-ietf-avtcore-srtp-vbr-audio-04 before January 20? Please post your review to apps-discuss (see below), and DO NOT post it to appsdir. The review should be sent to apps-discuss, the authors, the WG Chairs and document shepherd, if applicable. You can use the tools alias draft-ietf-avtcore-srtp-vbr-audio-04.all@tools.ietf.org to cover the authors, WG chairs, and shepherd. If your review recommends significant changes to a working-group document, you should also consider copying the working group's mailing list. Suggested distribution: To: apps-discuss@ietf.org, draft-ietf-avtcore-srtp-vbr-audio-04.all@tools.ietf.org Cc: iesg@ietf.org You can view the Apps-review template at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/template Some previous reviews are accessible at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/tracker Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Tue Jan 10 14:30:03 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7136F21F875A for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:30:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.663 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.663 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.064, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P28L5WFHPcC3 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:30:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68B1821F84EC for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:30:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.250]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0AM25wO006265 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:02:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1326232947; i=@elandsys.com; bh=syHaFDQwGZPdVRna3MdSJhQv78XyV/hynJ6N/V1loJc=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=Jx5QdaWJ9mbAjf2p3pX958gcKLD8YPOM3FINvTQIBwlrYdJz6lYHQYqYTMglhxJ+i N+nxV9iwTJ9BbxGomGYLJkfywtmWbnCgReMCheOsuicUhpDOfdyB3zqAroxfEzQE2x stKaFJMhznsjjAemVOhBzvBCIxfOijLVJc9iJ03A= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110135104.0cb28508@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 13:52:53 -0800 To: Xiaodong Lee From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-redundancy-consider-02 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:30:03 -0000 Hi Xiaodong, Could you review draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-redundancy-consider-02 before January 20? Please post your review to apps-discuss (see below), and DO NOT post it to appsdir. The review should be sent to apps-discuss, the authors, the WG Chairs and document shepherd, if applicable. You can use the tools alias draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-redundancy-consider-02.all@tools.ietf.org to cover the authors, WG chairs, and shepherd. If your review recommends significant changes to a working-group document, you should also consider copying the working group's mailing list. Suggested distribution: To: apps-discuss@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-redundancy-consider-02.all@tools.ietf.org Cc: iesg@ietf.org You can view the Apps-review template at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/template Some previous reviews are accessible at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/tracker Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Tue Jan 10 14:30:03 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E3FF21F84EC for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:30:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.66 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.66 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.061, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C8QSMothvBVa for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:30:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 449B021F875B for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:30:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.250]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0AM25wQ006265 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:02:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1326232951; i=@elandsys.com; bh=ZGvh7v5Lsk2/ip8LUVOp6LhK4TSgkBZmzoQrh7/SqlQ=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=vRFyBHbj1SjccDsj+p5RV5wE0ZzL9OkSikfwEZoN78KP75AHflrjFsm6ZE9FjmUOt ROq499PsahsCGQUEOdjbUJ4uNCykzWV9peNBvGK7ilWlILN1mkJL0r7krl9XnRMYlp R9RNVuZMhsd1xdHVs2Ax/cNWCPnTfejiAGMz83Uk= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110135302.0cb28798@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 13:54:39 -0800 To: Tim Bray From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-oauth-v2-threatmodel-01 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:30:03 -0000 Hi Tim, Could you review draft-ietf-oauth-v2-threatmodel-01 before January 20? Please post your review to apps-discuss (see below), and DO NOT post it to appsdir. The review should be sent to apps-discuss, the authors, the WG Chairs and document shepherd, if applicable. You can use the tools alias draft-ietf-oauth-v2-threatmodel-01.all@tools.ietf.org to cover the authors, WG chairs, and shepherd. If your review recommends significant changes to a working-group document, you should also consider copying the working group's mailing list. Suggested distribution: To: apps-discuss@ietf.org, draft-ietf-oauth-v2-threatmodel-01.all@tools.ietf.org Cc: iesg@ietf.org You can view the Apps-review template at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/template Some previous reviews are accessible at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/tracker Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Tue Jan 10 14:30:04 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C32F421F875E for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:30:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.657 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.657 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.058, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3NluSE-o5z+3 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:30:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B481521F84EC for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:30:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.250]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0AM25wW006265 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:02:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1326232962; i=@elandsys.com; bh=KA3L4GEwkzCMpbjWU0iJJYebnoH2JdAs6U7HFnWyXqA=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=IPouy2dYUr9DunQa9+vD1eE/I5kZiUhqEM2YJTB9ef8XmtE6AoQx/ULD8DkUQ2mPx +q5grkCBooTOl3NGDE+q6MAZjhj2gG48qAD8G5hXIDhWdDFkADb8F8uHSsSrHHVIYN KDdgsVqjd7ugn21cf7451p0JoCQPP9DUPWRgx5/o= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110135828.0cb50218@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 13:59:32 -0800 To: appsdir@ietf.org From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-discard-prefix-02 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:30:05 -0000 Hello, I took up the review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-discard-prefix-02 Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Tue Jan 10 14:30:04 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D33D621F8762 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:30:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.655 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.655 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.056, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WrzIRMM1x5pl for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:30:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D70A21F875D for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:30:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.250]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0AM25wU006265 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:02:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1326232959; i=@elandsys.com; bh=a3mvcuUpgNLjMSz24fmmN8dCvBet2WCDjF5n1lRQq8Q=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=T51oi//txmFe2aB3q+ICzSvk1i8U/4Ovf9O3WsQWeRreThRskNHsD6wSTPG/yTmXC zWAJI3xm+Dw+xQzV5bQN7e7/fZT9PHNpoob5rKVCKKyLQmqp+CH6oz8TQtE5CB1UXU /ln2PTzGo6m1+SmOtuqYrd1c+2WdlTkJWR8ce5Tk= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110135631.0cb27d58@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 13:58:25 -0800 To: Aaron Stone From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-sipclf-format-05 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:30:05 -0000 Hi Aaron, Could you review draft-ietf-sipclf-format-05 before January 20? Please post your review to apps-discuss (see below), and DO NOT post it to appsdir. The review should be sent to apps-discuss, the authors, the WG Chairs and document shepherd, if applicable. You can use the tools alias draft-ietf-sipclf-format-05.all@tools.ietf.org to cover the authors, WG chairs, and shepherd. If your review recommends significant changes to a working-group document, you should also consider copying the working group's mailing list. Suggested distribution: To: apps-discuss@ietf.org, draft-ietf-sipclf-format-05.all@tools.ietf.org Cc: iesg@ietf.org You can view the Apps-review template at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/template Some previous reviews are accessible at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/tracker Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Tue Jan 10 14:30:04 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E182421F84EC for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:30:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.653 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.653 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.054, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 556qvjCeYun2 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:30:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 354F621F875A for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:30:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.250]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0AM25wY006265 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:02:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1326232966; i=@elandsys.com; bh=a571lJccQD9EyGfh1C0rgMGNxKk7LOnLanB0q4lADzY=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=UdiLeu99zU2FuaF48DuVVa+GPRiEKvSPnFsmSomq/Ma0OnHzVwLsZATgWTucx7JzM HMdBH8W1+mQrq1Uq9D4G0lkQVOoFrbQAIwSIsN8wzioElRdqujgmw4RJjSeIFkZXxQ vislMiWNhqU/wSgnX/jwXFvUBKhmU6qrpuuETGPc= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110135951.0cb505f0@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:01:37 -0800 To: Barry Leiba From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-dane-protocol-14 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:30:05 -0000 Hi Barry, Could you review draft-ietf-dane-protocol-14 before January 20? Please post your review to apps-discuss (see below), and DO NOT post it to appsdir. The review should be sent to apps-discuss, the authors, the WG Chairs and document shepherd, if applicable. You can use the tools alias draft-ietf-dane-protocol-14.all@tools.ietf.org to cover the authors, WG chairs, and shepherd. If your review recommends significant changes to a working-group document, you should also consider copying the working group's mailing list. Suggested distribution: To: apps-discuss@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dane-protocol-14.all@tools.ietf.org Cc: iesg@ietf.org You can view the Apps-review template at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/template Some previous reviews are accessible at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/tracker Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Tue Jan 10 14:47:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AC0621F8762 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:47:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.648 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.049, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zoQTzve94eCY for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:47:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C71B121F875B for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:47:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.250]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0AMlRas022411 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:47:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1326235659; i=@elandsys.com; bh=l9XztnJC8gai/iOc+6KjYQ30Mpu46pnyipGic1P5qzc=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=fpmtue5u+tfILGQd3ziLFO/PFQSTV50vZnweBlq7fUrR2/ixHKcNYl2yx59nKkjg9 ZbUclT65HHsJIR06Bw1+yAweL6f+dA/BUC7rpFpOCwfGaWIenAdUfSDv02V++hgETy 2naJCo86apk+d4Rx7j1xGKTDbDnl+RmR+7mLm42A= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110144641.08e5be48@elandsys.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:47:19 -0800 To: appsdir@ietf.org From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [appsdir] Incorrect email address in last batch of assignments X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:47:42 -0000 Hello, [I sent this to the wrong list] I apologize for providing an incorrect email in the last batch of assignments. Please use addresses such as: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-discard-prefix.all@tools.ietf.org instead of: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-discard-prefix-02.all@tools.ietf.org as the email alias will not work when the version number is included after the name of the draft. Best regards, -sm From john-ietf@jck.com Tue Jan 10 16:03:48 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3662F21F87FD for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:03:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.467 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.095, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BJKQRyqh+BSz for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:03:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3581721F87EF for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:03:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1RklfN-0004EH-T3; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:03:46 -0500 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:03:44 -0500 From: John C Klensin To: SM Message-ID: <8F92E2E7B966B52C511FE746@PST.JCK.COM> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110134812.0cb28278@elandnews.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110134812.0cb28278@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Cc: appsdir@ietf.org, David Harrington Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-decade-reqs-05 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:03:48 -0000 Hi SM, These comments are procedural ones within the Review Team/ Directorate and not intended as a substantive review of the document, so I am sending it back to the list you copied on the request and adding Dave Harrington for reasons that will be obvious. I am willing to try to do this, but, after a quick look at the DECADE work and charter, I have three observations that may suggest handling it differently: (1) This document, which is supposedly a requirements statement, should probably be considered only in the light of the abbreviated problem statement in the DECADE charter, the revised and more extensive problem statement in draft-ietf-decade-problem-statement and the putative architecture in draft-ietf-decade-arch-04. I note that, according to the I-D database, the problem statement is under discussion with the AD and the architecture statement is also in "publication requested" state. Since a key criterion for a requirements statement is that it address the issues in the problem statement, I believe that we should defer a review on this document (whether I do it or someone else does) until the Problem Statement is stable. See Dave Harrington's rather extensive comments, and request for a new I-D, in the tracker as of 2011-12-16. (2) The comments above also suggest that, when all three documents are ready, they should be reviewed by the same person or as part of a coordinated effort. I do not have time to be that person this month. In addition... (3) In the interest of full disclosure (even though what I'm about to say will not come as news to many of the readers of this note), I have attitudes toward application protocol designs and architectures that are left over from experiences gained starting with the very first (circa 1970-71) applications development efforts for the ARPANET, including an understanding of how those architectures did and did not require changes for the Internet and, more important, how they were informed by bad experiences with other architectures. In that context, I suggest that: (3a) Most Internet applications are peer to peer in the sense that, administrative restrictions aside, there is nothing in the Internet world that is particularly special about being able to listen on a port for a connection. The ability to initiate a (virtual?) connection does not a client make, even though we may find that terminology convenient. Conversely, if it were the fact of initiating a connection that made a host a client, then there are no, or substantially no, unbrokered P2P applications. Put differently, one may use an intrinsically P2P application like SMTP or FTP in a client-server style or describe its operation in client-server terms, but neither makes it other than a P2P application. (3b) By contrast, an application or set of applications that operate, not between a pair of hosts, but with significant look-aside to obtain network-based resources from other hosts or systems, that application is inherently multiparty. It is not peer to peer in any of the classic uses of that terminology. I think I know how to think about peer to peer relationships in a mesh but, from reading the charter, that is not what DECADE is about. (3c) As you may have deduced from the above, I have an extremely bad attitude toward applications and application architectures that require or enable highly centralized services, especially services provided by "service providers" rather than, e.g., "application providers". We know where those approaches lead and those places include monopoly or oligarchic leverage, the costs that go with that, and the regulators that typically follow in that sequence (perhaps if one is lucky because the alternates are sometimes worse). To a considerable degree, the network we are now running was designed around the notion of getting back into those traps. I do not mean to suggest that the DECADE work should not be done. If people are going to do these things, then it is probably better to have them done in a standard way with careful investigation of security, privacy, and long-term economic implications (not just assertions about saving bandwidth and similar resources). But it may be impossible for me to do a review without my biases about architectural models and the importance of correct and precise terminology dominating it. So, for that reason even if not the advantages of an integrated review of the three documents, you might want to find someone else. regards, john --On Tuesday, January 10, 2012 13:51 -0800 SM wrote: > Hi John, > > Could you review draft-ietf-decade-reqs-05 before January 20? > Please post your review to apps-discuss (see below), and DO > NOT post it to appsdir. > > The review should be sent to apps-discuss, the authors, the WG > Chairs and document shepherd, if applicable. You can use the > tools alias draft-ietf-decade-reqs-05.all@tools.ietf.org to > cover the authors, WG chairs, and shepherd. If your review > recommends significant changes to a working-group document, > you should also consider copying the working group's mailing > list. > > Suggested distribution: > To: apps-discuss@ietf.org, > draft-ietf-decade-reqs-05.all@tools.ietf.org > Cc: iesg@ietf.org > > You can view the Apps-review template at > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/template Some > previous reviews are accessible at > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/tracker > > Best regards, > -sm > > _______________________________________________ > appsdir mailing list > appsdir@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/appsdir From sm@elandsys.com Tue Jan 10 17:08:33 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20F1511E80B8 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 17:08:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.531 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.159, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HTt2fp3CsUYn for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 17:08:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2A2311E80B5 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 17:08:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.250]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0B189IS017957 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 10 Jan 2012 17:08:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1326244103; i=@elandsys.com; bh=Uht6rRvSDcQnMbpOoNftq5vUhPCVifsmAnmyuibkK8M=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=dMhwjuDMYwi0LSQVoT5Q+hYnD7hn+dToFzRhTdm+CZ6CKvPNN6euoOhtmI8Zp9pJe GRqTYidt/A6QxkTkVZEY48llii8Mq5VwCt/XjnXWc8r++AlB1FYA5K6nMP3HDV8Kgm EzZxng2r/H0YCBpCw20EuRRbX2Q0ebkPNL+eiPzk= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110161238.09180e18@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:58:30 -0800 To: John C Klensin From: SM In-Reply-To: <8F92E2E7B966B52C511FE746@PST.JCK.COM> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110134812.0cb28278@elandnews.com> <8F92E2E7B966B52C511FE746@PST.JCK.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: appsdir@ietf.org, David Harrington Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-decade-reqs-05 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 01:08:33 -0000 Hi John, At 16:03 10-01-2012, John C Klensin wrote: >These comments are procedural ones within the Review Team/ >Directorate and not intended as a substantive review of the >document, so I am sending it back to the list you copied on the >request and adding Dave Harrington for reasons that will be >obvious. I'll provide some background on how this draft ended up in the batch of assignments. As you may have noticed, the Applications Directorate has been doing early reviews of drafts and this draft was selected as part of the early review effort. >I am willing to try to do this, but, after a quick look at the >DECADE work and charter, I have three observations that may >suggest handling it differently: > >(1) This document, which is supposedly a requirements >statement, should probably be considered only in the light of >the abbreviated problem statement in the DECADE charter, the >revised and more extensive problem statement in >draft-ietf-decade-problem-statement and the putative >architecture in draft-ietf-decade-arch-04. I note that, >according to the I-D database, the problem statement is under >discussion with the AD and the architecture statement is also in >"publication requested" state. Since a key criterion for a Although I read each draft and sometimes the background discussion, it is not possible for me to have a good view before sending out the assignment. I noticed the state and misguidedly assumed that the draft was considered as ready for publication. >requirements statement is that it address the issues in the >problem statement, I believe that we should defer a review on >this document (whether I do it or someone else does) until the >Problem Statement is stable. See Dave Harrington's rather >extensive comments, and request for a new I-D, in the tracker as >of 2011-12-16. I am Ok with deferring the review. I would appreciate if Dave Harrington sent me a note if he would like an Appsdir review. >(2) The comments above also suggest that, when all three >documents are ready, they should be reviewed by the same person >or as part of a coordinated effort. I do not have time to be >that person this month. In addition... Ok. It is a problem for me to ask someone to review three drafts at the same time. I try to distribute the workload or else it will end up as a more work for a subset of the team. >(3c) As you may have deduced from the above, I have an extremely >bad attitude toward applications and application architectures >that require or enable highly centralized services, especially >services provided by "service providers" rather than, e.g., >"application providers". We know where those approaches lead >and those places include monopoly or oligarchic leverage, the >costs that go with that, and the regulators that typically >follow in that sequence (perhaps if one is lucky because the >alternates are sometimes worse). To a considerable degree, the >network we are now running was designed around the notion of >getting back into those traps. If a reviewer has a strong opinion about a draft, it is entirely appropriate for him to decline the assignment. From what you explained above, I prefer if you do not take up the review of draft-ietf-decade-reqs-05. >similar resources). But it may be impossible for me to do a >review without my biases about architectural models and the >importance of correct and precise terminology dominating it. See above. >So, for that reason even if not the advantages of an integrated >review of the three documents, you might want to find someone >else. Thanks for the advice. As you might have guessed, there will be other Appsdir requests. :-) Best regards, -sm From tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org Tue Jan 10 18:08:50 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0785221F8516 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:08:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -96.471 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.471 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.306, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HELO_MISMATCH_DE=1.448, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ntAqSKFMXgkl for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:08:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from lvps83-169-7-107.dedicated.hosteurope.de (www.gondrom.org [83.169.7.107]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E049C21F8513 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:08:47 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gondrom.org; b=RRFfsQftC7gB8b/bDA+A6UqTGgxrY8g4SYybASssoqqfh5Op76U5rUAtgz/+AmwxeYTZxvNtNY8QFOfIyGUrHRdkXyuDSoXuGNw73VCg1+y/13j2q4/vpzfft44f15gp; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type; Received: (qmail 15936 invoked from network); 11 Jan 2012 03:08:35 +0100 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.5.8.84?) (61.8.220.69) by www.gondrom.org with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 11 Jan 2012 03:08:34 +0100 Message-ID: <4F0CEF1E.1080303@gondrom.org> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 02:08:30 +0000 From: Tobias Gondrom User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111220 Thunderbird/9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: appsdir@ietf.org, sm+ietf@elandsys.com References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110135951.0cb505f0@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110135951.0cb505f0@elandnews.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030109020406080409050409" Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for reviews X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 02:08:50 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030109020406080409050409 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi SM, hi apps-dir fellows, maybe a small proposal or question: I noticed the appsdir mechanism to assign documents to reviewers is different to what we use in sec-dir. Please note, that this is perfectly fine with me, if you choose so. Just wondering whether there is a specific reason or just coincidence. FYI, a typical sec-dir assignment email is added below. In sec-dir, all assignments are done in one email to the list (about every 1-2 weeks) and this way everybody has an overview of the normal work going on and look for his assignments within this one email. The current configuration in Apps-Dir (sending the review request in a batch to the individual with cc to the appsdir list) makes it harder to have an overview (because you have to read each assignment email individually), but actually would make it very easy (i.e. tempting) to configure an incoming message filter that will file everything except emails sent directly to me into a folder for later reading. (Not sure whether that is the intent?) Personally I think I prefer the sec-dir approach as that way everybody in the team has an overview over the drafts currently under review and possible interactions, but have no strong opinion on that. Of course it only works if you send out assignment requests in a batch, like yesterday. Any comments? Best regards, Tobias -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [secdir] Assignments Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 18:25:14 -0500 (EST) From: Samuel Weiler Reply-To: secdir-secretary@mit.edu To: secdir@ietf.org I hope everyone had a good Christmas and has a pleasant and safe New Year celebration. As I observed last week, "most of the outstanding previosuly-assigned docs are scheduled for [the January 5th telechat]". If you have an old assignment, that document is likely on the telechat next week. Only four new assignments today. Leif Johansson is next in the rotation. For telechat 2012-01-05 Reviewer LC end Draft Derek Atkins T 2012-01-06 draft-arkko-ipv6-only-experience-04 Richard Barnes T 2011-12-20 draft-ietf-sipclf-problem-statement-09 Uri Blumenthal T 2011-12-19 draft-ietf-storm-rddp-registries-01 Alan DeKok T 2011-12-05 draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-05 Alan DeKok T 2012-01-06 draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation-00 Donald Eastlake T 2012-01-04 draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd-18 Shawn Emery T - draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-applicability-04 Tobias Gondrom T 2012-01-04 draft-ietf-softwire-gateway-init-ds-lite-06 Love Hornquist-Astrand T 2011-12-29 draft-daboo-webdav-sync-06 Jeffrey Hutzelman T 2011-12-26 draft-gregorio-uritemplate-07 Tim Polk T 2011-12-28 draft-kucherawy-dkim-atps-13 Eric Rescorla T 2011-12-29 draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation-04 For telechat 2012-01-19 Reviewer LC end Draft Rob Austein T 2012-01-11 draft-ash-gcac-algorithm-spec-03 Phillip Hallam-Baker T 2012-01-18 draft-jiang-a6-to-historic-00 Jeffrey Hutzelman T 2012-01-04 draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-07 Julien Laganier T 2011-12-15 draft-ietf-marf-redaction-03 Last calls and special requests: Reviewer LC end Draft Dave Cridland 2012-01-03 draft-os-ietf-sshfp-ecdsa-sha2-04 Steve Hanna 2012-01-13 draft-nottingham-http-new-status-03 Sam Hartman 2012-01-05 draft-ietf-kitten-sasl-saml-06 Paul Hoffman 2012-01-12 draft-ietf-alto-reqs-12 Love Hornquist-Astrand 2012-01-13 draft-ietf-pcn-signaling-requirements-07 Tina TSOU 2011-04-23 draft-shin-augmented-pake-08 _______________________________________________ secdir mailing list secdir@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir wiki: http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview --------------030109020406080409050409 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi SM, hi apps-dir fellows,

maybe a small proposal or question:
I noticed the appsdir mechanism to assign documents to reviewers is different to what we use in sec-dir. Please note, that this is perfectly fine with me, if you choose so.
Just wondering whether there is a specific reason or just coincidence.
FYI, a typical sec-dir assignment email is added below.

In sec-dir, all assignments are done in one email to the list (about every 1-2 weeks) and this way everybody has an overview of the normal work going on and look for his assignments within this one email.

The current configuration in Apps-Dir (sending the review request in a batch to the individual with cc to the appsdir list) makes it harder to have an overview (because you have to read each assignment email individually), but actually would make it very easy (i.e. tempting) to configure an incoming message filter that will file everything except emails sent directly to me into a folder for later reading. (Not sure whether that is the intent?)

Personally I think I prefer the sec-dir approach as that way everybody in the team has an overview over the drafts currently under review and possible interactions, but have no strong opinion on that.
Of course it only works if you send out assignment requests in a batch, like yesterday.

Any comments?

Best regards, Tobias



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [secdir] Assignments
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 18:25:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Samuel Weiler <weiler+secdir@watson.org>
Reply-To: secdir-secretary@mit.edu
To: secdir@ietf.org 


I hope everyone had a good Christmas and has a pleasant and safe New 
Year celebration.

As I observed last week, "most of the outstanding previosuly-assigned 
docs are scheduled for [the January 5th telechat]".  If you have an 
old assignment, that document is likely on the telechat next week.

Only four new assignments today.  Leif Johansson is next in the 
rotation.

For telechat 2012-01-05

Reviewer                 LC end     Draft
Derek Atkins           T 2012-01-06 draft-arkko-ipv6-only-experience-04
Richard Barnes         T 2011-12-20 draft-ietf-sipclf-problem-statement-09
Uri Blumenthal         T 2011-12-19 draft-ietf-storm-rddp-registries-01
Alan DeKok             T 2011-12-05 draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-05
Alan DeKok             T 2012-01-06 draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation-00
Donald Eastlake        T 2012-01-04 draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd-18
Shawn Emery            T -          draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-applicability-04
Tobias Gondrom         T 2012-01-04 draft-ietf-softwire-gateway-init-ds-lite-06
Love Hornquist-Astrand T 2011-12-29 draft-daboo-webdav-sync-06
Jeffrey Hutzelman      T 2011-12-26 draft-gregorio-uritemplate-07
Tim Polk               T 2011-12-28 draft-kucherawy-dkim-atps-13
Eric Rescorla          T 2011-12-29 draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation-04


For telechat 2012-01-19

Reviewer                 LC end     Draft
Rob Austein            T 2012-01-11 draft-ash-gcac-algorithm-spec-03
Phillip Hallam-Baker   T 2012-01-18 draft-jiang-a6-to-historic-00
Jeffrey Hutzelman      T 2012-01-04 draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-07
Julien Laganier        T 2011-12-15 draft-ietf-marf-redaction-03

Last calls and special requests:

Reviewer                 LC end     Draft
Dave Cridland            2012-01-03 draft-os-ietf-sshfp-ecdsa-sha2-04
Steve Hanna              2012-01-13 draft-nottingham-http-new-status-03
Sam Hartman              2012-01-05 draft-ietf-kitten-sasl-saml-06
Paul Hoffman             2012-01-12 draft-ietf-alto-reqs-12
Love Hornquist-Astrand   2012-01-13 draft-ietf-pcn-signaling-requirements-07
Tina TSOU                2011-04-23 draft-shin-augmented-pake-08
_______________________________________________
secdir mailing list
secdir@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir
wiki: http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview

--------------030109020406080409050409-- From john-ietf@jck.com Tue Jan 10 19:26:39 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C75E21F8747 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:26:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.463 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.463 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.091, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MCdt5yqEO1bp for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:26:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7853221F8744 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:26:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Rkoph-0006em-69; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:26:37 -0500 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:26:36 -0500 From: John C Klensin To: SM Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110161238.09180e18@elandnews.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110134812.0cb28278@elandnews.com> <8F92E2E7B966B52C511FE746@PST.JCK.COM> <6.2.5.6.2.20120110161238.09180e18@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-decade-reqs-05 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 03:26:39 -0000 SM, One further comment... --On Tuesday, January 10, 2012 16:58 -0800 SM wrote: >> (2) The comments above also suggest that, when all three >> documents are ready, they should be reviewed by the same >> person or as part of a coordinated effort. I do not have >> time to be that person this month. In addition... > > Ok. It is a problem for me to ask someone to review three > drafts at the same time. I try to distribute the workload or > else it will end up as a more work for a subset of the team. Understood. But, first, there are long drafts and short drafts. I This "requirements" piece is 24 (really 23) pages long (including boilerplate). The corresponding "problem statement" piece is a tad over 14 and some of Dave's comments could easily result in the next version being shorter. The "architecture" piece is somewhat longer, running to 44 pages. But, even then, it is not clear to me that reviewing one 75 or 100 page document is a lot easier than reviewing 82 pages or closely-related ones. Second, it would take a bit more coordination on your part, but it seems to me that the requirement/preference implicit in my suggestion could be served as well by having three (or two) reviewers who were willing to coordinate and exchange reactions enough to do a coordinated or integrated set of reviews. Just some thoughts. best, john From sm@elandsys.com Tue Jan 10 19:56:11 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 486F721F8645 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:56:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.639 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.639 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OzYgoNFNvWOH for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:56:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9DA221F860B for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:56:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.250]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0B3toUA026057 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:56:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1326254163; i=@elandsys.com; bh=HvgX0uijl0VYOuCaX8nrVQ+AWNjHntMetyivmC2CrO8=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=LJEcofqRMVRw2qmegDJGhSKz/SEjS3vuvqFyggMtcCESOkr4B8hxXj+dmtydEKZK0 aSC9uSPhd1bKl6War9A5eA53VoIzm8Kg4+wH6tqXgbp1vxdWYHb5/2/WBDhDEaOsS9 2dyoVFGpesmjPVuLVnWF02hHbKS/kKWdxaU89ntI= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110181652.0c801860@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:54:56 -0800 To: Tobias Gondrom From: SM In-Reply-To: <4F0CEF1E.1080303@gondrom.org> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110135951.0cb505f0@elandnews.com> <4F0CEF1E.1080303@gondrom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for reviews X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 03:56:11 -0000 Hi Tobias, Please excuse me as I don't know how to say all this in a politically correct manner. The comments are not aimed at any individual including you. At 18:08 10-01-2012, Tobias Gondrom wrote: >maybe a small proposal or question: >I noticed the appsdir mechanism to assign documents to reviewers is >different to what we use in sec-dir. Please note, that this is >perfectly fine with me, if you choose so. >Just wondering whether there is a specific reason or just coincidence. >FYI, a typical sec-dir assignment email is added below. > >In sec-dir, all assignments are done in one email to the list (about >every 1-2 weeks) and this way everybody has an overview of the >normal work going on and look for his assignments within this one email. I am aware of that. :-) >The current configuration in Apps-Dir (sending the review request in >a batch to the individual with cc to the appsdir list) makes it >harder to have an overview (because you have to read each assignment >email individually), but actually would make it very easy (i.e. >tempting) to configure an incoming message filter that will file >everything except emails sent directly to me into a folder for later >reading. (Not sure whether that is the intent?) It is more work for me to generate one email per assignment. Mistakes happened, as you may have seen today, as I customize the message for each assignment. The intent is to tell the reviewer which assignment he got. The message is copied to appsdir so that there is a record of what was asked. The team gets to see it and anyone who reads the public archives can see it. >Personally I think I prefer the sec-dir approach as that way >everybody in the team has an overview over the drafts currently >under review and possible interactions, but have no strong opinion on that. >Of course it only works if you send out assignment requests in a >batch, like yesterday. I would prefer that. But I have to follow the approach which the team prefers. Sec-dir works as people are used to the approach. It also looks good on your resume when you list Sec-dir. :-) The list of reviews which have been performed are at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/tracker Some of them were done before I took over as Team Lead. Some people would do reviews, some would not. Some people would ignore my emails. As this is volunteer work, I rely on the goodwill of the reviewers to get the work done. I don't have any history on how the work was done before my time. I use the appsdir mailing list so that the next person who takes over can avoid my mistakes. I try to keep everything as open and transparent as possible so that this team does not get labelled a kangaroo court ( http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext/current/msg11994.html ) or an old boys club. I complained when reviews were not given adequate consideration. That is because I value the effort put in by the reviewer in performing a review. I understand that some people can be unhappy with my approach. I encourage people to talk to me or the Apps ADs (and I mean it) if there is anything they don't like. If nobody asks questions (like you did), it is not possible for me to know what is being done correctly or incorrectly. I don't know what a directorate should be like or what is best for it. I hope each of you can derive a benefit from it while contributing to IETF work. I need your expertise. You don't need me. As such, I don't have much leverage. Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Tue Jan 10 21:15:58 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84B421F0C3E for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:15:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.525 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.525 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.153, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bx06qOnsUjt4 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:15:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92A8E11E8080 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:15:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.250]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0B5FawW000649 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:15:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1326258951; i=@elandsys.com; bh=DaF5SMvLBVtrgHLA78JPPDlSMvhjUrY8ZLSXXbjInHA=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=PbkPZPFK2KD3i6P/OjeVlqFya0p3eQWCct40mZMrryUdXsea3/oPOYcT0Rwq2e9E5 TrUPED9GOEzq7fgp/Bc8VZi8LhzL7zqqAvSomUNFsgh/0BPfvE2+N9rtHvMQjExnAz 0oUipGu42Meze8NmA/HVvWqIVop22Mnuk9YQYRsc= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110195532.0cb92da8@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:09:43 -0800 To: John C Klensin From: SM In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110134812.0cb28278@elandnews.com> <8F92E2E7B966B52C511FE746@PST.JCK.COM> <6.2.5.6.2.20120110161238.09180e18@elandnews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: [appsdir] Willing to coordinate and exchange reactions (was: Request for review: draft-ietf-decade-reqs-05) X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 05:15:58 -0000 Hi John, At 19:26 10-01-2012, John C Klensin wrote: >Understood. But, first, there are long drafts and short drafts. >I This "requirements" piece is 24 (really 23) pages long >(including boilerplate). The corresponding "problem statement" >piece is a tad over 14 and some of Dave's comments could easily >result in the next version being shorter. The "architecture" >piece is somewhat longer, running to 44 pages. But, even then, >it is not clear to me that reviewing one 75 or 100 page document >is a lot easier than reviewing 82 pages or closely-related ones. Yes. I picked three reviews last year as they were closely related. I'll give what you suggested above a try. >Second, it would take a bit more coordination on your part, but >it seems to me that the requirement/preference implicit in my >suggestion could be served as well by having three (or two) >reviewers who were willing to coordinate and exchange reactions >enough to do a coordinated or integrated set of reviews. I don't mind the extra coordination. I am going to do an experiment based on your suggestion. I am going to have two reviewers for each assignment from the next batch and ask for a joint review. The first reviewer gets to select someone else on the team to work with him/her. In case it is not clear: (a) Assignment to first reviewer (b) First reviewer acks assignment (c) First reviewer contacts another reviewer from the team (d) Second reviewer acks (e) Joint review performed If any of you have any comments about the above, please post them to the list or send them to me. Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Tue Jan 10 21:38:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 398DB11E809B for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:38:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.633 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.633 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.034, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mK7naGUg5T5R for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:38:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BBC011E8094 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:38:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.250]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0B5bMDE026850 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:37:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1326260256; i=@elandsys.com; bh=3o71k42C9X+Ky696GGg9KXlLuRZuO3QsdQt0+l7YPvg=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=NMXZLl48qqJ4tvslLAW/4cWjjCqsW33NMXzxNBzQjPiRMP3/lrtRmJdla9yzNGjTy /AkiNAhUbAjMbPp+XmhmrBsSriqCoFbHMY0Xc+T8OCZHe/14OLf1SvUJICf72/oMlI WFZEwLuwTM+hfbH0pQBxw0r2wcEpOAxJYpI1dHQ4= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110211953.0e06fed0@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:36:30 -0800 To: Richard Woundy , Haibin Song From: S Moonesamy Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: appsdir@ietf.org, David Harrington Subject: [appsdir] Apps review of DECADE drafts X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 05:38:47 -0000 Dear DECADE WG Chairs, [Cc to Apps ADs and Responsible AD for their information] I assigned the review of draft-ietf-decade-reqs to one of the members of the Applications Directorate and he pointed out that the document is not ready for review given the AD review ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-decade-problem-statement/history/ ). The Application Directorate would like to review draft-ietf-decade-reqs and draft-ietf-decade-problem-statement simultaneously. I would be grateful if you could contact me when these two drafts are ready for publiation. Regards, S. Moonesamy From haibin.song@huawei.com Tue Jan 10 22:14:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9E1421F847A for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:14:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.539 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YgOlCsXguxn8 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:14:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73B0721F8776 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:14:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LXM008PEELATX@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for appsdir@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:12:46 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LXM00H9RELA2A@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for appsdir@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:12:46 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml201-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AGJ20761; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:12:34 +0800 Received: from SZXEML408-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.95) by szxeml201-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:12:26 +0800 Received: from SZXEML534-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.211]) by szxeml408-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.95]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:12:22 +0800 Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 06:12:21 +0000 From: Songhaibin In-reply-to: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110211953.0e06fed0@elandnews.com> X-Originating-IP: [10.138.41.129] To: S Moonesamy , Richard Woundy Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-language: zh-CN Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Thread-topic: Apps review of DECADE drafts Thread-index: AQHM0CZMWA9Zl9q10Ee/N+h2ZReqG5YGrNhA X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110211953.0e06fed0@elandnews.com> X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:25:41 -0800 Cc: "appsdir@ietf.org" , David Harrington Subject: Re: [appsdir] Apps review of DECADE drafts X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 06:14:20 -0000 Dear S. Moonesamy, I'm very glad to receive this email. We have sent the document shepherd write-ups for decade requirements to our responsible AD. I think it is great to have Apps Directorate review this draft after we get the feedback from David. As for the problem statement, we are about to submit a new version after the final clear-up with the document shepherd. It will be ready in several days. BR, -Haibin > -----Original Message----- > From: S Moonesamy [mailto:sm+ietf@elandsys.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:37 PM > To: Richard Woundy; Songhaibin > Cc: appsdir@ietf.org; David Harrington > Subject: Apps review of DECADE drafts > > Dear DECADE WG Chairs, > > [Cc to Apps ADs and Responsible AD for their information] > > I assigned the review of draft-ietf-decade-reqs to one of the members > of the Applications Directorate and he pointed out that the document > is not ready for review given the AD review ( > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-decade-problem-statement/history/ > ). > > The Application Directorate would like to review > draft-ietf-decade-reqs and draft-ietf-decade-problem-statement > simultaneously. I would be grateful if you could contact me when > these two drafts are ready for publiation. > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy From msk@cloudmark.com Tue Jan 10 22:47:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A2BE21F8772 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:47:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.577 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.577 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.022, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6ULIrewxKZEE for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:47:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB36121F876E for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:47:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from malice.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.71) by EXCH-HTCAS901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:47:28 -0800 Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:47:35 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "appsdir@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:47:31 -0800 Thread-Topic: [appsdir] Request for reviews Thread-Index: AczQFPkXASBoa2+nQ1O1RVTQ8yHm+wAFmi7Q Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110135951.0cb505f0@elandnews.com> <4F0CEF1E.1080303@gondrom.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20120110181652.0c801860@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110181652.0c801860@elandnews.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for reviews X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 06:47:40 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: appsdir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:appsdir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behal= f Of SM > Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 7:55 PM > To: Tobias Gondrom > Cc: appsdir@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for reviews >=20 > Hi Tobias, >=20 > Please excuse me as I don't know how to say all this in a politically > correct manner. The comments are not aimed at any individual including > you. What my client is trying to say is that he's feeling a little overwhelmed b= y the responsibility he feels as the Apps Directorate team lead. :-) > >The current configuration in Apps-Dir (sending the review request in a > >batch to the individual with cc to the appsdir list) makes it harder to > >have an overview (because you have to read each assignment email > >individually), but actually would make it very easy (i.e. > >tempting) to configure an incoming message filter that will file > >everything except emails sent directly to me into a folder for later > >reading. (Not sure whether that is the intent?) What I would really like to see, though this would likely involve help from= the tools team, is an advanced tracker where SM just has to add the name o= f a draft and perhaps check some boxes for the IETF area it comes from and = some relevant subjects. The tracker matches that up to the next reviewer i= n the rotation that matches one or more of those criteria (or, if none, jus= t the next person) and makes the assignment, nagging the person if the revi= ew has not been submitted a bit before the due date, then again on the due = date. SM could make whatever overrides he likes, including accommodating p= eople that volunteer to do certain reviews. Even better would be to add a draft to our tracker automatically as soon as= it hits Publication Requested or AD evaluation. The emails would be gener= ated by the system and the mailing list would only really be needed as a pl= ace to collect reviews and/or to discuss exceptions to the process, and men= tion people as they leave or are added to the team. Rather than the summary like what SecDir currently gets, a single URL prese= nts a dashboard of current AppsDir membership and activity. Until we have that, I think either method (SecDir's or AppsDir's) is workab= le. We don't see as much activity as SecDir does so I think it's less of a= problem. If we tried to review absolutely everything as SecDir does, I im= agine the current mechanism would start to have scaling problems. > >Personally I think I prefer the sec-dir approach as that way everybody > >in the team has an overview over the drafts currently under review and > >possible interactions, but have no strong opinion on that. > >Of course it only works if you send out assignment requests in a batch, > >like yesterday. >=20 > I would prefer that. But I have to follow the approach which the team > prefers. I'd be willing to give it a try if SM is. > The list of reviews which have been performed are at > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/tracker Some of them > were done before I took over as Team Lead. =20 I don't have any context for how it was done before as I joined the team ab= out when SM did. Given that, I think things are working just fine for us s= o far, especially given the nature of a team of volunteers with their own b= usy schedules. > I understand that some people can be unhappy with my approach. I > encourage people to talk to me or the Apps ADs (and I mean it) if there > is anything they don't like. If nobody asks questions (like you did), > it is not possible for me to know what is being done correctly or > incorrectly. As I said, I suspect the current system is adequate given the size of the t= eam and its current workload. That doesn't mean our system is better or th= ere's no room for improvement, but I haven't observed any pressure to shape= up. I think the meeting we had in Taipei was very productive toward impro= ving our operation, for example. > I don't know what a directorate should be like or what is best for it. > I hope each of you can derive a benefit from it while contributing to > IETF work. I need your expertise. You don't need me. As such, I > don't have much leverage. You underestimate your value here, as usual. -MSK From sm@elandsys.com Wed Jan 11 00:27:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AF5A21F8539 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:27:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.632 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gy+O4CYeFzFZ for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:27:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D75321F852C for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:27:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.250]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0B8QhfY028741 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:26:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1326270417; i=@elandsys.com; bh=IlL85LjG/dgx+6oWvs6SNcr0s7SH67/MEZhuCeESjEk=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:References:Mime-Version: Content-Type; b=qZgMkQMbNpzTsFAupIOhLP5x417TUZuk9xzxs6GlcHcUHRK62l4ANCxc/wwGInwjU cmBx/CiqPeEtulJ69ARc1WrMqIt941D6DpyJepQOwpr91ofY+qOxSpkGutvMposKBJ ee4sBOdtfkOl+PuKeNQkNLT3L/cO3zM9LrupyQ9I= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110224228.0ccc4770@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 23:27:41 -0800 To: Songhaibin , Richard Woundy From: S Moonesamy References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110211953.0e06fed0@elandnews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: appsdir@ietf.org, David Harrington Subject: Re: [appsdir] Apps review of DECADE drafts X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:27:08 -0000 Hi Haibin, At 22:12 10-01-2012, Songhaibin wrote: >I'm very glad to receive this email. We have sent the document >shepherd write-ups for decade requirements to our responsible AD. I >think it is great to have Apps Directorate review this draft after >we get the feedback from David. > >As for the problem statement, we are about to submit a new version >after the final clear-up with the document shepherd. It will be >ready in several days. Thanks for the prompt response. The Applications directorate review is to assess whether there are any application-related issues and whether a draft is ready for publication. The reviews from the directorate are semi-formal. It is up to the IESG to decide what to do. I usually do not comment about reviews that will be assigned. I took another look at draft-ietf-decade-reqs-05. From the Write-up, I see a statement from Mr Akbar Rahman that the draft is ready for IESG review and publication. From Section 2 of the draft: "This document uses terms defined in [I-D.ietf-decade-problem-statement]." I-D.ietf-decade-problem-statement is an informative reference in the draft. I don't think that draft-ietf-decade-reqs-05 is ready for publication as an adequate review would have caught that. Regards, S. Moonesamy From Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it Wed Jan 11 00:28:22 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1AFE21F852F for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:28:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TU2EuzRX3SxO for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:28:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from cyrus.dir.garr.it (cyrus.dir.garr.it [IPv6:2001:760:0:158::29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9792C21F852C for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:28:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mac-allocchio3.elettra.trieste.it (mac-allocchio3.elettra.trieste.it [140.105.2.18]) (authenticated bits=0) by cyrus.dir.garr.it (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0B8Rumu066389 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:27:57 +0100 (CET) X-DomainKeys: Sendmail DomainKeys Filter v1.0.2 cyrus.dir.garr.it q0B8Rumu066389 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=garr.it; c=simple; q=dns; b=NkTCVqOk9+ofIp/2A3Nv1CY5JGMUXQJGLKvzdB3j2m470nVAUBmHIqg6tC/bWXILZ NpriwXDdP51OQJVLCWEqSThpk7ZGjmWWzFXXAjuln3f4v3iop/bx5EaHwPhbC5PkFox xdWjlp15RituVywnqixLEOVZFaEN4c2bADTRCm8= Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:27:56 +0100 (CET) From: Claudio Allocchio X-X-Sender: claudio@mac-allocchio3.elettra.trieste.it To: Tobias Gondrom In-Reply-To: <4F0CEF1E.1080303@gondrom.org> Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110135951.0cb505f0@elandnews.com> <4F0CEF1E.1080303@gondrom.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (OSX 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: appsdir@ietf.org, sm+ietf@elandsys.com Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for reviews X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:28:23 -0000 my small preference... :-) If I get the assignement like we do now on appsdir, I'm certain (well... at least 98% certain) that I do read all assignemt messages, and I definitly get those assigned to me or more interesting assigned to others. Because I read them one-by-one... If I receive a diest, the "missing the assignmenet/document" risk is mch higher. But that's because of the way I handle my email messages and work on them... nothing more. SM also send summaries,... ok, they're post-mortem ones, e.g. what's been done during the last month. In case we feel it useful, we can send "also" assignment summaries; but I personally ("personally") do not see an advantage in doing that, and only further for for the current coordinator. ok that's it, nothing really fundamental :-) Claudio On Wed, 11 Jan 2012, Tobias Gondrom wrote: > Hi SM, hi apps-dir fellows, > > maybe a small proposal or question: > I noticed the appsdir mechanism to assign documents to reviewers is different > to what we use in sec-dir. Please note, that this is perfectly fine with me, > if you choose so. > Just wondering whether there is a specific reason or just coincidence. > FYI, a typical sec-dir assignment email is added below. > > In sec-dir, all assignments are done in one email to the list (about every > 1-2 weeks) and this way everybody has an overview of the normal work going on > and look for his assignments within this one email. > > The current configuration in Apps-Dir (sending the review request in a batch > to the individual with cc to the appsdir list) makes it harder to have an > overview (because you have to read each assignment email individually), but > actually would make it very easy (i.e. tempting) to configure an incoming > message filter that will file everything except emails sent directly to me > into a folder for later reading. (Not sure whether that is the intent?) > > Personally I think I prefer the sec-dir approach as that way everybody in the > team has an overview over the drafts currently under review and possible > interactions, but have no strong opinion on that. > Of course it only works if you send out assignment requests in a batch, like > yesterday. > > Any comments? > > Best regards, Tobias > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [secdir] Assignments > Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 18:25:14 -0500 (EST) > From: Samuel Weiler > Reply-To: secdir-secretary@mit.edu > To: secdir@ietf.org > > > > I hope everyone had a good Christmas and has a pleasant and safe New > Year celebration. > > As I observed last week, "most of the outstanding previosuly-assigned > docs are scheduled for [the January 5th telechat]". If you have an > old assignment, that document is likely on the telechat next week. > > Only four new assignments today. Leif Johansson is next in the > rotation. > > For telechat 2012-01-05 > > Reviewer LC end Draft > Derek Atkins T 2012-01-06 draft-arkko-ipv6-only-experience-04 > Richard Barnes T 2011-12-20 draft-ietf-sipclf-problem-statement-09 > Uri Blumenthal T 2011-12-19 draft-ietf-storm-rddp-registries-01 > Alan DeKok T 2011-12-05 draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-05 > Alan DeKok T 2012-01-06 draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation-00 > Donald Eastlake T 2012-01-04 draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd-18 > Shawn Emery T - draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-applicability-04 > Tobias Gondrom T 2012-01-04 > draft-ietf-softwire-gateway-init-ds-lite-06 > Love Hornquist-Astrand T 2011-12-29 draft-daboo-webdav-sync-06 > Jeffrey Hutzelman T 2011-12-26 draft-gregorio-uritemplate-07 > Tim Polk T 2011-12-28 draft-kucherawy-dkim-atps-13 > Eric Rescorla T 2011-12-29 draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation-04 > > > For telechat 2012-01-19 > > Reviewer LC end Draft > Rob Austein T 2012-01-11 draft-ash-gcac-algorithm-spec-03 > Phillip Hallam-Baker T 2012-01-18 draft-jiang-a6-to-historic-00 > Jeffrey Hutzelman T 2012-01-04 draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-07 > Julien Laganier T 2011-12-15 draft-ietf-marf-redaction-03 > > Last calls and special requests: > > Reviewer LC end Draft > Dave Cridland 2012-01-03 draft-os-ietf-sshfp-ecdsa-sha2-04 > Steve Hanna 2012-01-13 draft-nottingham-http-new-status-03 > Sam Hartman 2012-01-05 draft-ietf-kitten-sasl-saml-06 > Paul Hoffman 2012-01-12 draft-ietf-alto-reqs-12 > Love Hornquist-Astrand 2012-01-13 draft-ietf-pcn-signaling-requirements-07 > Tina TSOU 2011-04-23 draft-shin-augmented-pake-08 > _______________________________________________ > secdir mailing list > secdir@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir > wiki: http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 haibin.song@huawei.com Wed Jan 11 01:06:33 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BA0D21F8863 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 01:06:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.544 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.544 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.055, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pU3S6e0v3yE1 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 01:06:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F66B21F8861 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 01:06:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LXM00H5HMKSVS@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for appsdir@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:05:16 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LXM00IDWMK7SW@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for appsdir@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:05:16 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml207-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AGG09646; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:05:14 +0800 Received: from SZXEML407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.94) by szxeml207-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:05:10 +0800 Received: from SZXEML534-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.211]) by szxeml407-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.94]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:05:07 +0800 Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:05:06 +0000 From: Songhaibin In-reply-to: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110224228.0ccc4770@elandnews.com> X-Originating-IP: [10.138.41.129] To: S Moonesamy , Richard Woundy Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-language: zh-CN Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Thread-topic: Apps review of DECADE drafts Thread-index: AQHM0CZMWA9Zl9q10Ee/N+h2ZReqG5YG1g7GgAAB5LA= X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110211953.0e06fed0@elandnews.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120110224228.0ccc4770@elandnews.com> X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 01:35:07 -0800 Cc: "appsdir@ietf.org" , David Harrington Subject: Re: [appsdir] Apps review of DECADE drafts X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:06:33 -0000 > I usually do not comment about reviews that will be assigned. I took > another look at draft-ietf-decade-reqs-05. From the Write-up, I see > a statement from Mr Akbar Rahman that the draft is ready for IESG > review and publication. From Section 2 of the draft: > > "This document uses terms defined in > [I-D.ietf-decade-problem-statement]." > > I-D.ietf-decade-problem-statement is an informative reference in the > draft. I don't think that draft-ietf-decade-reqs-05 is ready for > publication as an adequate review would have caught that. Thanks. We will discuss whether to have the definition in this draft or to wait until the publication of problem statement draft. -Haibin > -----Original Message----- > From: S Moonesamy [mailto:sm+ietf@elandsys.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 3:28 PM > To: Songhaibin; Richard Woundy > Cc: appsdir@ietf.org; David Harrington > Subject: RE: Apps review of DECADE drafts > > Hi Haibin, > At 22:12 10-01-2012, Songhaibin wrote: > >I'm very glad to receive this email. We have sent the document > >shepherd write-ups for decade requirements to our responsible AD. I > >think it is great to have Apps Directorate review this draft after > >we get the feedback from David. > > > >As for the problem statement, we are about to submit a new version > >after the final clear-up with the document shepherd. It will be > >ready in several days. > > Thanks for the prompt response. The Applications directorate review > is to assess whether there are any application-related issues and > whether a draft is ready for publication. The reviews from the > directorate are semi-formal. It is up to the IESG to decide what to do. > > I usually do not comment about reviews that will be assigned. I took > another look at draft-ietf-decade-reqs-05. From the Write-up, I see > a statement from Mr Akbar Rahman that the draft is ready for IESG > review and publication. From Section 2 of the draft: > > "This document uses terms defined in > [I-D.ietf-decade-problem-statement]." > > I-D.ietf-decade-problem-statement is an informative reference in the > draft. I don't think that draft-ietf-decade-reqs-05 is ready for > publication as an adequate review would have caught that. > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy From sm@elandsys.com Wed Jan 11 02:00:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D41721F8684 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 02:00:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.631 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.032, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qD8ux+5Occ58 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 02:00:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 013A421F86E5 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 02:00:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.250]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0BA0WdF001423 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 02:00:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1326276047; i=@elandsys.com; bh=de9ZcXAcALYLWqgY+ZlmviDeWtJ3xAeJo4bhTaSFpWg=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=HQQRX+xN7mdNx20VilWqsnARpt+cFOaYJNZX79W4G7zigvIsZ7bRUNupQEQwlNfvG P2/sknFrxfOCby86MIy+8I5I05/PFoEo7F/Z7tAxe7JXmaun2XqeiAIub6Zv+UUVqf ZrSsPB7Oatj77eL58GamPu+4Gnp++9MioDBDtfYQ= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110232744.0ccc51b0@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 01:34:34 -0800 To: appsdir@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110135951.0cb505f0@elandnews.com> <4F0CEF1E.1080303@gondrom.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20120110181652.0c801860@elandnews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for reviews X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:00:57 -0000 Hello, I noticed that there are non-team members who are subscribed to this mailing list. At 22:47 10-01-2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >What my client is trying to say is that he's feeling a little >overwhelmed by the :-) > responsibility he feels as the Apps Directorate team lead. :-) I guess I would describe it more as a sense of responsibility towards each of you. >Rather than the summary like what SecDir currently gets, a single >URL presents a dashboard of current AppsDir membership and activity. That's a good way to display who is doing what. >Until we have that, I think either method (SecDir's or AppsDir's) is >workable. We don't see as much activity as SecDir does so I think >it's less of a problem. If we tried to review absolutely everything >as SecDir does, I imagine the current mechanism would start to have >scaling problems. My plan is to move to the SecDir approach once everyone feels familiar with what to review, where to send the review, etc. >I'd be willing to give it a try if SM is. Let me do the experiment and then try that one. >I don't have any context for how it was done before as I joined the >team about when SM did. Given that, I think things are working just >fine for us so far, especially given the nature of a team of >volunteers with their own busy schedules. Yes, and I am quite surprised by that. At 00:27 11-01-2012, Claudio Allocchio wrote: >If I receive a diest, the "missing the assignmenet/document" risk is >mch higher. As I am using the tracker nowadays, I would generate individual messages for the reviewer and send the batch of assignments and reviewer names to the list. >SM also send summaries,... ok, they're post-mortem ones, e.g. what's >been done during the It is good to have the summaries every month to tell who is doing what. > last month. In case we feel it useful, we can send "also" > assignment summaries; but I personally ("personally") do not see an > advantage in doing that, and only further for for the current coordinator. There is a list of WGs being tracked at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate The point was to have each member track some working groups and let us know if there is any draft which requires an Apps review. Some of you have not filled in the information on that web page. During our breakfast, we discussed about short summaries of what WGs were doing to get a sense of what is going on in the Apps Area. The Apps ADs used to send monthly reports. I found that useful. Best regards, -sm From dhc@dcrocker.net Wed Jan 11 08:32:48 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AC0321F86AA for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:32:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.649 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UwIU0aDDVG2d for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:32:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FA5F21F868A for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:32:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.11] (adsl-67-127-55-53.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.55.53]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0BGV2EE022417 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:31:08 -0800 Message-ID: <4F0DB93B.8030806@dcrocker.net> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:30:51 -0800 From: Dave CROCKER Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Claudio Allocchio References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110135951.0cb505f0@elandnews.com> <4F0CEF1E.1080303@gondrom.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:31:09 -0800 (PST) Cc: Tobias Gondrom , appsdir@ietf.org, sm+ietf@elandsys.com Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for reviews X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:32:48 -0000 On 1/11/2012 12:27 AM, Claudio Allocchio wrote: > > my small preference... :-) > > If I get the assignement like we do now on appsdir, I'm certain (well... at > least 98% certain) that I do read all assignemt messages, and I definitly get > those assigned to me or more interesting assigned to others. > Because I read them one-by-one... > > If I receive a diest, the "missing the assignmenet/document" risk is mch higher. Just to emphasize, this is a basic human issue and not just Claudio's... For an extreme version of this issue, for group-vs-individual targeting, take a look at at a description of the effect of dissipated personal responsibility about Kitty Genovese. A single message, to the responsible party, with a specific assignment, is by far the better tool for making the assignment and for reviewing assignments. The BCC nicely provides a public archive. IMO, it's the right transactional unit. Any aggregation requires an additional layer of processing. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From masinter@adobe.com Wed Jan 11 09:39:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F131021F889A for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:39:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -108.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4SP+SlqAxxQr for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:39:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod6og108.obsmtp.com (exprod6og108.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.21]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEA8821F884B for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:39:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from outbound-smtp-2.corp.adobe.com ([193.104.215.16]) by exprod6ob108.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTw3JJuaZ1/Z6u9asHsn1et6W/TbNnhai@postini.com; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:39:16 PST Received: from inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com (inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com [153.32.1.51]) by outbound-smtp-2.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id q0BHchPu015997; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:38:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from nahub01.corp.adobe.com (nahub01.corp.adobe.com [10.8.189.97]) by inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id q0BHcgL7013586; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:38:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.95]) by nahub01.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.97]) with mapi; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:38:42 -0800 From: Larry Masinter To: SM , "appsdir@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:38:40 -0800 Thread-Topic: [appsdir] Request for reviews Thread-Index: AczQR/LrFx5UifCYTU+4ZXfuovV6LgAP4FIw Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110135951.0cb505f0@elandnews.com> <4F0CEF1E.1080303@gondrom.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20120110181652.0c801860@elandnews.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120110232744.0ccc51b0@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110232744.0ccc51b0@elandnews.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for reviews X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:39:18 -0000 > The point was to have each member track some working groups and let us kn= ow if there is any draft which requires an Apps review. =20 I just listed the groups for which I regularly read the working group email= . I didn't know that I was supposed to let you know if there was a draft wh= ich required an Apps review, and I don't really know what criteria to apply= to decide that. (Part of it is that I'm editor of drafts in most of the wo= rking groups I'm tracking.) I'd be more comfortable if the WG chairs decided when drafts needed the rev= iew, rather than me. Larry From stpeter@stpeter.im Wed Jan 11 10:25:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B566821F86A8 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:25:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.846 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.846 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.247, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XInweuuEyzZE for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:25:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0557221F8698 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:25:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from normz.cisco.com (unknown [72.163.0.129]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BFCE540058; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 11:34:47 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <4F0DD428.6000704@stpeter.im> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 11:25:44 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Larry Masinter References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110135951.0cb505f0@elandnews.com> <4F0CEF1E.1080303@gondrom.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20120110181652.0c801860@elandnews.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120110232744.0ccc51b0@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4 OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "appsdir@ietf.org" , SM Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for reviews X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:25:47 -0000 On 1/11/12 10:38 AM, Larry Masinter wrote: >> The point was to have each member track some working groups and let >> us know if there is any draft which requires an Apps review. > > I just listed the groups for which I regularly read the working group > email. I didn't know that I was supposed to let you know if there was > a draft which required an Apps review, and I don't really know what > criteria to apply to decide that. (Part of it is that I'm editor of > drafts in most of the working groups I'm tracking.) > > I'd be more comfortable if the WG chairs decided when drafts needed > the review, rather than me. I think it's a bit of "all of the above". Speaking in my AD role, sometimes we're approached by ADs in other areas about documents that will soon emerge out of their working groups. Sometimes folks "in" the apps area are paying attention to work in other areas (say, DANE) because many of us know that such work has implications for applications. Sometimes it would be nice for someone on the appsdir to speak up and say "hey, there's some work going on in the FOO WG that we might want to review". Any and all of those are welcome as paths to adding documents to the review list here. IMHO, of course. :) Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre http://stpeter.im/ From sm@elandsys.com Wed Jan 11 14:48:59 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F72D21F8776 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:48:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.629 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.629 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HYFjkkgTNYIz for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:48:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BB2121F8773 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:48:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.192]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0BMmbbS006246 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:48:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1326322130; i=@elandsys.com; bh=gsaNexjeM7V9Dr1nHbMK+eghizyU5hQQG17ZKlR4wHs=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=xhbejNApfV/DvYuPMMR4DovmYEq0+MjUPT9XOnbAhZFSJEuT5d0fikK521J1+m3GV 3sxmmcJWdLslQli31gt6vkBfrxmq8ZpLQhJ49uD/gwRW4RYDb0eWG0axGSmIqeA11+ xzS2f6gTnFsI+rjt5RHSwhGodIi/09OCGqH1ot8U= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120111135905.0b2d8f60@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:16:04 -0800 To: dcrocker@bbiw.net From: SM In-Reply-To: <4F0DB93B.8030806@dcrocker.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110135951.0cb505f0@elandnews.com> <4F0CEF1E.1080303@gondrom.org> <4F0DB93B.8030806@dcrocker.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for reviews X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 22:48:59 -0000 Hi Dave, At 08:30 11-01-2012, Dave CROCKER wrote: >Just to emphasize, this is a basic human issue and not just Claudio's... > >For an extreme version of this issue, for group-vs-individual >targeting, take a look at at a description of the effect of >dissipated personal responsibility about Kitty Genovese. Yes. >A single message, to the responsible party, with a specific >assignment, is by far the better tool for making the assignment and >for reviewing assignments. The BCC nicely provides a public archive. Do you mean a copy of the message to this mailing list? Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Wed Jan 11 17:32:30 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8372E11E80BB for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:32:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.628 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.628 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.029, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SpShgV2yMz1L for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:32:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 436E611E80B9 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:32:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.192]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0C1W7K5023881 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:32:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1326331944; i=@elandsys.com; bh=na86BROOghop33BGHAFKe1kKdrZG73juXS2T9TbuezU=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=hxad52RTfGX2aBhoSHeMD4TQUeL7wtDDGlqpTOdviaDyyraMzxGp4YwJ1rb5uVMrY cjeQxOnoeNwAOKq420AQRRf4cBBylYXn+lWZ8/j6QGOFCfp7zN9rxKbZR1aNODPlAH K4JbdqSLCSIVHvysRXCvqjkkIHyiv7S8dJ7xaNK4= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120111171949.0b4fac30@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:30:39 -0800 To: appsdir@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: <20120111203434.GH2024@mail.yitter.info> References: <4ED94590.3090902@ogud.com> <20120110145640.GC6201@crankycanuck.ca> <6BC842FB-FC81-4B1A-8EFF-735314D77141@hopcount.ca> <20120111162112.GD1334@mail.yitter.info> <20120111203434.GH2024@mail.yitter.info> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: Andrew Sullivan Subject: Re: [appsdir] [dnsext] disposition of draft-eastlake-dnsext-xnamercode-05 (was: DNSEXT closing down soon) X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 01:32:30 -0000 Hi Murray, At 12:34 11-01-2012, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >I was going to ship it as is as the product of the WG, but your remark >made me realise that there's a bureaucratic snafu that results in that >case. So it'll have to get a name change. Sigh. I'll get Donald to >submit it with the changed name, but it will otherwise be exactly the >same as passed WGLC. I'll wait for the WGLC to start before I assigning this review. I generally look at whether there is some WG discussion as our task is cross-area review and not a substitute for WG participation. Best regards, -sm From tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org Wed Jan 11 18:09:01 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA4F121F858F for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:09:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -96.532 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.245, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HELO_MISMATCH_DE=1.448, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DfAH4VaYiaie for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:09:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from lvps83-169-7-107.dedicated.hosteurope.de (www.gondrom.org [83.169.7.107]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA19121F858D for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:08:59 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gondrom.org; b=iOmXdPPGWOrJ6pmxGP/e8Nw1q493wCiOh3OVjrG4r3gdG092JU0+NboHw1RxW4DVFNsD1THwI9du0TBfvqDmo5CHhoMD80vSMkerM7MvE6K51ktSnVPPvFu8oINzH4fL; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:X-Priority:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type; Received: (qmail 3497 invoked from network); 12 Jan 2012 03:08:55 +0100 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.5.8.84?) (61.8.220.69) by www.gondrom.org with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 12 Jan 2012 03:08:54 +0100 Message-ID: <4F0E40B3.9090408@gondrom.org> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 10:08:51 +0800 From: Tobias Gondrom User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111220 Thunderbird/9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: appsdir@ietf.org X-Priority: 4 (Low) References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110135951.0cb505f0@elandnews.com> <4F0CEF1E.1080303@gondrom.org> <4F0DB93B.8030806@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: <4F0DB93B.8030806@dcrocker.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030905040306090305050804" Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for reviews X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 02:09:01 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030905040306090305050804 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 12/01/12 00:30, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > On 1/11/2012 12:27 AM, Claudio Allocchio wrote: >> >> my small preference... :-) >> >> If I get the assignement like we do now on appsdir, I'm certain >> (well... at >> least 98% certain) that I do read all assignemt messages, and I >> definitly get >> those assigned to me or more interesting assigned to others. >> Because I read them one-by-one... >> >> If I receive a diest, the "missing the assignmenet/document" risk is >> mch higher. > > Just to emphasize, this is a basic human issue and not just Claudio's... > > For an extreme version of this issue, for group-vs-individual > targeting, take a look at at a description of the effect of dissipated > personal responsibility about Kitty Genovese. > > > > A single message, to the responsible party, with a specific > assignment, is by far the better tool for making the assignment and > for reviewing assignments. The BCC nicely provides a public archive. > > IMO, it's the right transactional unit. Any aggregation requires an > additional layer of processing. > > d/ Hm. Maybe before I start, let me re-iterate, I have no strong preferences, only thought the sec-dir approach might be beneficial for the team. So on my account we can also keep things as they are. In the end it boils down to your work style: some prefer to read one email with a list which contains your name and assignment or scan a list of emails for some that may be relevant for you. Personally I prefer the first, but can equally see why others may prefer the latter. However, taking from your comment and reference to the "Kitty Genovese" case, there might be a misconception of the process being used at sec-dir. The Volunteer's dilemma would apply if the drafts were not assigned to individuals in sec-dir. But that is a false assumption. All assignments are per person (like at appsdir, as you can see in the list below, each person is assigned a specific draft and deadline (so there is no volunteer's dilemma)). In fact, by the way the list is "public" in the group and you can be sure that each member of sec-dir reads it (to see their own assignments) you actually even equally have some peer-pressure to fulfil your assignments as they are "public commitments" (plus you get the convenient overview of who is doing what, which can help to link two reviews if their drafts are related.) Also to my knowledge nearly no reviews in sec-dir are slipped (at least not by me and the guys I know of). So I would take this as a confirmation the method works in principle. Anyway, as I said I am also happy with appsdir's current process, just wanted to mention the option to handle things like in sec-dir. Best regards, Tobias -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [secdir] Assignments Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 18:25:14 -0500 (EST) From: Samuel Weiler Reply-To: secdir-secretary@mit.edu To: secdir@ietf.org I hope everyone had a good Christmas and has a pleasant and safe New Year celebration. As I observed last week, "most of the outstanding previosuly-assigned docs are scheduled for [the January 5th telechat]". If you have an old assignment, that document is likely on the telechat next week. Only four new assignments today. Leif Johansson is next in the rotation. For telechat 2012-01-05 Reviewer LC end Draft Derek Atkins T 2012-01-06 draft-arkko-ipv6-only-experience-04 Richard Barnes T 2011-12-20 draft-ietf-sipclf-problem-statement-09 Uri Blumenthal T 2011-12-19 draft-ietf-storm-rddp-registries-01 Alan DeKok T 2011-12-05 draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-05 Alan DeKok T 2012-01-06 draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation-00 Donald Eastlake T 2012-01-04 draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd-18 Shawn Emery T - draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-applicability-04 Tobias Gondrom T 2012-01-04 draft-ietf-softwire-gateway-init-ds-lite-06 Love Hornquist-Astrand T 2011-12-29 draft-daboo-webdav-sync-06 Jeffrey Hutzelman T 2011-12-26 draft-gregorio-uritemplate-07 Tim Polk T 2011-12-28 draft-kucherawy-dkim-atps-13 Eric Rescorla T 2011-12-29 draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation-04 For telechat 2012-01-19 Reviewer LC end Draft Rob Austein T 2012-01-11 draft-ash-gcac-algorithm-spec-03 Phillip Hallam-Baker T 2012-01-18 draft-jiang-a6-to-historic-00 Jeffrey Hutzelman T 2012-01-04 draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-07 Julien Laganier T 2011-12-15 draft-ietf-marf-redaction-03 Last calls and special requests: Reviewer LC end Draft Dave Cridland 2012-01-03 draft-os-ietf-sshfp-ecdsa-sha2-04 Steve Hanna 2012-01-13 draft-nottingham-http-new-status-03 Sam Hartman 2012-01-05 draft-ietf-kitten-sasl-saml-06 Paul Hoffman 2012-01-12 draft-ietf-alto-reqs-12 Love Hornquist-Astrand 2012-01-13 draft-ietf-pcn-signaling-requirements-07 Tina TSOU 2011-04-23 draft-shin-augmented-pake-08 _______________________________________________ secdir mailing list secdir@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir wiki:http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview --------------030905040306090305050804 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 12/01/12 00:30, Dave CROCKER wrote:


On 1/11/2012 12:27 AM, Claudio Allocchio wrote:

my small preference... :-)

If I get the assignement like we do now on appsdir, I'm certain (well... at
least 98% certain) that I do read all assignemt messages, and I definitly get
those assigned to me or more interesting assigned to others.
Because I read them one-by-one...

If I receive a diest, the "missing the assignmenet/document" risk is mch higher.

Just to emphasize, this is a basic human issue and not just Claudio's...

For an extreme version of this issue, for group-vs-individual targeting, take a look at at a description of the effect of dissipated personal responsibility about Kitty Genovese.

   <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese>

A single message, to the responsible party, with a specific assignment, is by far the better tool for making the assignment and for reviewing assignments. The BCC nicely provides a public archive.

IMO, it's the right transactional unit.  Any aggregation requires an additional layer of processing.

d/

Hm.

Maybe before I start, let me re-iterate, I have no strong preferences, only thought the sec-dir approach might be beneficial for the team. So on my account we can also keep things as they are.
In the end it boils down to your work style: some prefer to read one email with a list which contains your name and assignment or scan a list of emails for some that may be relevant for you. Personally I prefer the first, but can equally see why others may prefer the latter.

However, taking from your comment and reference to the "Kitty Genovese" case, there might be a misconception of the process being used at sec-dir.
The Volunteer's dilemma would apply if the drafts were not assigned to individuals in sec-dir.
But that is a false assumption.

All assignments are per person (like at appsdir, as you can see in the list below, each person is assigned a specific draft and deadline (so there is no volunteer's dilemma)). In fact, by the way the list is "public" in the group and you can be sure that each member of sec-dir reads it (to see their own assignments) you actually even equally have some peer-pressure to fulfil your assignments as they are "public commitments" (plus you get the convenient overview of who is doing what, which can help to link two reviews if their drafts are related.)
Also to my knowledge nearly no reviews in sec-dir are slipped (at least not by me and the guys I know of). So I would take this as a confirmation the method works in principle.

Anyway, as I said I am also happy with appsdir's current process, just wanted to mention the option to handle things like in sec-dir.

Best regards, Tobias



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [secdir] Assignments
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 18:25:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Samuel Weiler <weiler+secdir@watson.org>
Reply-To: secdir-secretary@mit.edu
To: secdir@ietf.org 


I hope everyone had a good Christmas and has a pleasant and safe New 
Year celebration.

As I observed last week, "most of the outstanding previosuly-assigned 
docs are scheduled for [the January 5th telechat]".  If you have an 
old assignment, that document is likely on the telechat next week.

Only four new assignments today.  Leif Johansson is next in the 
rotation.

For telechat 2012-01-05

Reviewer                 LC end     Draft
Derek Atkins           T 2012-01-06 draft-arkko-ipv6-only-experience-04
Richard Barnes         T 2011-12-20 draft-ietf-sipclf-problem-statement-09
Uri Blumenthal         T 2011-12-19 draft-ietf-storm-rddp-registries-01
Alan DeKok             T 2011-12-05 draft-ietf-6man-exthdr-05
Alan DeKok             T 2012-01-06 draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation-00
Donald Eastlake        T 2012-01-04 draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd-18
Shawn Emery            T -          draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-applicability-04
Tobias Gondrom         T 2012-01-04 draft-ietf-softwire-gateway-init-ds-lite-06
Love Hornquist-Astrand T 2011-12-29 draft-daboo-webdav-sync-06
Jeffrey Hutzelman      T 2011-12-26 draft-gregorio-uritemplate-07
Tim Polk               T 2011-12-28 draft-kucherawy-dkim-atps-13
Eric Rescorla          T 2011-12-29 draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation-04


For telechat 2012-01-19

Reviewer                 LC end     Draft
Rob Austein            T 2012-01-11 draft-ash-gcac-algorithm-spec-03
Phillip Hallam-Baker   T 2012-01-18 draft-jiang-a6-to-historic-00
Jeffrey Hutzelman      T 2012-01-04 draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-07
Julien Laganier        T 2011-12-15 draft-ietf-marf-redaction-03

Last calls and special requests:

Reviewer                 LC end     Draft
Dave Cridland            2012-01-03 draft-os-ietf-sshfp-ecdsa-sha2-04
Steve Hanna              2012-01-13 draft-nottingham-http-new-status-03
Sam Hartman              2012-01-05 draft-ietf-kitten-sasl-saml-06
Paul Hoffman             2012-01-12 draft-ietf-alto-reqs-12
Love Hornquist-Astrand   2012-01-13 draft-ietf-pcn-signaling-requirements-07
Tina TSOU                2011-04-23 draft-shin-augmented-pake-08
_______________________________________________
secdir mailing list
secdir@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir
wiki: http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview



--------------030905040306090305050804-- From msk@cloudmark.com Wed Jan 11 19:06:25 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2CC511E80BA for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 19:06:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.579 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PVZRUL1N-wWj for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 19:06:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B05311E80C6 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 19:06:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from malice.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.71) by EXCH-HTCAS901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 19:06:16 -0800 Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 19:06:23 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: SM , "appsdir@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 19:06:20 -0800 Thread-Topic: [appsdir] [dnsext] disposition of draft-eastlake-dnsext-xnamercode-05 (was: DNSEXT closing down soon) Thread-Index: AczQyg+Qd7GJrPGxTmmz1uPkQgW+UwADPWBw Message-ID: References: <4ED94590.3090902@ogud.com> <20120110145640.GC6201@crankycanuck.ca> <6BC842FB-FC81-4B1A-8EFF-735314D77141@hopcount.ca> <20120111162112.GD1334@mail.yitter.info> <20120111203434.GH2024@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111171949.0b4fac30@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120111171949.0b4fac30@resistor.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Andrew Sullivan Subject: Re: [appsdir] [dnsext] disposition of draft-eastlake-dnsext-xnamercode-05 (was: DNSEXT closing down soon) X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 03:06:25 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: appsdir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:appsdir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behal= f Of SM > Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 5:31 PM > To: appsdir@ietf.org > Cc: Andrew Sullivan > Subject: Re: [appsdir] [dnsext] disposition of draft-eastlake-dnsext-xnam= ercode-05 (was: DNSEXT closing down soon) >=20 > Hi Murray, > At 12:34 11-01-2012, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > >I was going to ship it as is as the product of the WG, but your remark > >made me realise that there's a bureaucratic snafu that results in that > >case. So it'll have to get a name change. Sigh. I'll get Donald to > >submit it with the changed name, but it will otherwise be exactly the > >same as passed WGLC. >=20 > I'll wait for the WGLC to start before I assigning this review. I > generally look at whether there is some WG discussion as our task is > cross-area review and not a substitute for WG participation. My read of the archive is that they did a WGLC on it, but forgot the step o= f making it a WG item by name before doing so, so that's effectively been d= one already. Andrew, can you confirm? -MSK From ajs@crankycanuck.ca Wed Jan 11 18:33:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05DFB11E80BD for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:33:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.336 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.336 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.867, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xz0ZxGWUzdXT for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:33:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A1CA11E8079 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:33:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.16.34.108] (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 270361ECB41D; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 02:33:10 +0000 (UTC) References: <4ED94590.3090902@ogud.com> <20120110145640.GC6201@crankycanuck.ca> <6BC842FB-FC81-4B1A-8EFF-735314D77141@hopcount.ca> <20120111162112.GD1334@mail.yitter.info> <20120111203434.GH2024@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111171949.0b4fac30@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120111171949.0b4fac30@resistor.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: <9C73B7A6-8390-4BB1-A639-A138524A7E14@crankycanuck.ca> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (9A405) From: Andrew Sullivan Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 21:33:05 -0500 To: SM X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 22:21:50 -0800 Cc: "appsdir@ietf.org" , Andrew Sullivan Subject: Re: [appsdir] [dnsext] disposition of draft-eastlake-dnsext-xnamercode-05 (was: DNSEXT closing down soon) X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 02:33:12 -0000 The wg lc is over some time ago.=20 --=20 Andrew Sullivan=20 Please excuse my clumsy thumbs.=20 On 2012-01-11, at 20:30, SM wrote: > Hi Murray, > At 12:34 11-01-2012, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >> I was going to ship it as is as the product of the WG, but your remark >> made me realise that there's a bureaucratic snafu that results in that >> case. So it'll have to get a name change. Sigh. I'll get Donald to >> submit it with the changed name, but it will otherwise be exactly the >> same as passed WGLC. >=20 > I'll wait for the WGLC to start before I assigning this review. I general= ly look at whether there is some WG discussion as our task is cross-area rev= iew and not a substitute for WG participation. >=20 > Best regards, > -sm=20 From sm@elandsys.com Wed Jan 11 23:39:00 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B24B21F864A for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 23:39:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.627 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.627 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.028, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C59XhmqMCh4K for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 23:38:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8B1C21F8649 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 23:38:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.192]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0C7cPth028786 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 11 Jan 2012 23:38:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1326353919; i=@elandsys.com; bh=0x/FC6HbyU3p3huc349KH7kz3XkVcLfoTQa07mwKae8=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=KC7OVj7WKPhG6l+DZeLOTfXqMOqjQIcjqj9EQ43Hzu6FPuyhUFMC4JyuhQbpaGnde wAGThKsAk+WkRpChW8/nPIq4cD2fydZ3BfF0IzEWElCgW7aElhcMzKEzG0ghDZOehR I3YnquzJPMR/5gs9p+8sFYMbPoCLPPgNe8JgHQkM= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120111222251.0782c998@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 X-Priority: 4 (Low) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 23:38:09 -0800 To: Tobias Gondrom From: SM In-Reply-To: <4F0E40B3.9090408@gondrom.org> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110135951.0cb505f0@elandnews.com> <4F0CEF1E.1080303@gondrom.org> <4F0DB93B.8030806@dcrocker.net> <4F0E40B3.9090408@gondrom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for reviews X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 07:39:00 -0000 Hi Tobias, At 18:08 11-01-2012, Tobias Gondrom wrote: >>Also to my knowledge nearly no reviews in sec-dir are slipped (at >>least not by me and the guys I know of). So I would take this as a >>confirmation the method works in principle. I was trying to get an explanation about that at the last IETF meeting. I sent out eight assignments a few days ago. I got an ack from the following people: John Klensin (review will be reassigned) Barry Leiba Alexey Melkinov Tim Bray The following people have not responded yet: Carsten Bormann Salvatore Loreto Aaron Stone Xiaodong Lee (I know that there is a problem for him to email me) According to the guidelines discussed on apps-review previously, I have to send out a reminder after two working days, then find someone another reviewer if there is no positive reply. I have done that previously. It took me ten days to get a reviewer. Assuming that a review has to be delivered within two weeks (including weekends), that leaves only four days for the reviewer. As the reviewers have different work patterns, this can end up being two days. I could ask the Apps AD to defer the IESG evaluation of a draft to give a reviewer more time. They might laugh at me as that is not an alternative. draft-kucherawy-authres-spf-erratum-01 is an easy review. It is highly unlikely that it will be given a " do not publish". draft-ietf-dane-protocol-14 has application area implications. There has been some controversy about draft-ietf-oauth-v2-threatmodel-01 and the topic is applications related. It's not a problem if the first review slips; it is a problem for the last two reviews because they are the type of drafts that we are supposed to review. A 50% success rate is not an option to me. For your information, we had a 100% success rate last year. I seriously don't know how that happened but that's where we are now. I appreciate the feedback you and the other team members have provided. It helps me to gain a better outlook. Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Wed Jan 11 23:51:28 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F20121F84D0 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 23:51:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.626 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.626 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ran+6AjheCFi for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 23:51:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6371B21F84C5 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 23:51:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.192]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0C7p9Ot009969 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 11 Jan 2012 23:51:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1326354682; i=@elandsys.com; bh=nOZeMUMSn/XoxX9g9YCtqsIsKQm7fZ58/TVVshBnMhw=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=PDcOjAiTdGYqKhNTY4f2Q8KI19AsZvABhZ22Ej5aJ2HrfdkRsUEzYL6rdV7ak2Exf 9xGwSqQVnPdt3fq1/C3HjbYLW0y1kUpR1FDPMpfBdenfxJ8evIPlreHiRx8ILhJyWf aFYBnfxQ041n9AU8Sl7FW5YeJyWOVwVEs/gWPRt0= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120111234319.07850b70@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 23:45:39 -0800 To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode-00 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 07:51:28 -0000 Hi Murray, Could you please review draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode-00 by January 20? Best regards, -sm From msk@cloudmark.com Wed Jan 11 23:56:55 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5480821F865B for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 23:56:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.579 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nRSPhg45dW+L for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 23:56:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 707A521F8653 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 23:56:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from spite.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.72) by EXCH-HTCAS901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 23:56:46 -0800 Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 23:56:53 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "appsdir@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 23:56:52 -0800 Thread-Topic: Request for review: draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode-00 Thread-Index: AczQ/v3D8kRuKVEbTUqgxv+ZDzwvawAALkxQ Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120111234319.07850b70@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120111234319.07850b70@elandnews.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode-00 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 07:56:55 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: SM [mailto:sm+ietf@elandsys.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 11:46 PM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy > Cc: appsdir@ietf.org > Subject: Request for review: draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode-00 >=20 > Hi Murray, >=20 > Could you please review draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode-00 by January 20? Wilco. -MSK From tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org Thu Jan 12 00:00:11 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8813D21F8470 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 00:00:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -96.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.176, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HELO_MISMATCH_DE=1.448, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JKuLy39sFCDU for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 00:00:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from lvps83-169-7-107.dedicated.hosteurope.de (www.gondrom.org [83.169.7.107]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A91D21F8471 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 00:00:10 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gondrom.org; b=iNlhkK/GWbA8659tkVl0yjuQc2xn8KIa9iXRnNNLrWNUdIYOT7TAqBx6oh4p+O1v9GgJTJb7/DXNmgDpuZWoOxPnrAB1NR6tRRdQiR5Y3oeGg7n6pGp2K1d5jsAkdoBr; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:X-Priority:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; Received: (qmail 7674 invoked from network); 12 Jan 2012 08:59:57 +0100 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.5.8.84?) (61.8.220.69) by www.gondrom.org with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 12 Jan 2012 08:59:56 +0100 Message-ID: <4F0E92F9.30402@gondrom.org> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 15:59:53 +0800 From: Tobias Gondrom User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111220 Thunderbird/9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sm+ietf@elandsys.com X-Priority: 4 (Low) References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110135951.0cb505f0@elandnews.com> <4F0CEF1E.1080303@gondrom.org> <4F0DB93B.8030806@dcrocker.net> <4F0E40B3.9090408@gondrom.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111222251.0782c998@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120111222251.0782c998@elandnews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for reviews X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:00:11 -0000 Hi sm, well, it's not unusual for some hick-ups at the beginning of these review processes. So some things should improve over time... But, if I may say so: actually I don't like the idea that you as the coordinator need to send a reminder if you don't get an ACK from the reviewer. That creates a lot of extra work on your end. The best default should be that the assigned review will be done until the deadline (of course as long as that deadline is something reasonable >72hours) unless the reviewer sends a deny (of course within lets say 72hours). A second bit that might be helpful: in sec-dir drafts are assigned in round-robin, so in case you get a deny from a reviewer you just assign the next on the list. And if people are on long-term holidays they usually can let Sam (the sec-dir manager) know ahead of time so they will not get any drafts assigned during that period. (Of course mistakes happen, for example I once missed to notify him beforehand and then had to tell him after receiving the sec-dir assignments email, anyway the draft got reassigned to the next reviewer within hours.). Btw. Sam might actually also have a number of nice scripts to automate some of the steps, maybe worth for you talking with him, whether there is something you can re-use to make your life easier. Best regards, Tobias On 12/01/12 15:38, SM wrote: > Hi Tobias, > At 18:08 11-01-2012, Tobias Gondrom wrote: >>> Also to my knowledge nearly no reviews in sec-dir are slipped (at >>> least not by me and the guys I know of). So I would take this as a >>> confirmation the method works in principle. > > I was trying to get an explanation about that at the last IETF > meeting. I sent out eight assignments a few days ago. I got an ack > from the following people: > > John Klensin (review will be reassigned) > Barry Leiba > Alexey Melkinov > Tim Bray > > The following people have not responded yet: > > Carsten Bormann > Salvatore Loreto > Aaron Stone > Xiaodong Lee (I know that there is a problem for him to email me) > > According to the guidelines discussed on apps-review previously, I > have to send out a reminder after two working days, then find someone > another reviewer if there is no positive reply. I have done that > previously. It took me ten days to get a reviewer. Assuming that a > review has to be delivered within two weeks (including weekends), that > leaves only four days for the reviewer. As the reviewers have > different work patterns, this can end up being two days. I could ask > the Apps AD to defer the IESG evaluation of a draft to give a reviewer > more time. They might laugh at me as that is not an alternative. > > draft-kucherawy-authres-spf-erratum-01 is an easy review. It is > highly unlikely that it will be given a " do not publish". > draft-ietf-dane-protocol-14 has application area implications. There > has been some controversy about draft-ietf-oauth-v2-threatmodel-01 and > the topic is applications related. It's not a problem if the first > review slips; it is a problem for the last two reviews because they > are the type of drafts that we are supposed to review. > > A 50% success rate is not an option to me. For your information, we > had a 100% success rate last year. I seriously don't know how that > happened but that's where we are now. > > I appreciate the feedback you and the other team members have > provided. It helps me to gain a better outlook. > > Best regards, > -sm From Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it Thu Jan 12 00:20:07 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D54921F851C for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 00:20:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O1DLobpnytgw for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 00:20:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from cyrus.dir.garr.it (cyrus.dir.garr.it [IPv6:2001:760:0:158::29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B552021F84D8 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 00:20:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mac-allocchio3.elettra.trieste.it (mac-allocchio3.elettra.trieste.it [140.105.2.18]) (authenticated bits=0) by cyrus.dir.garr.it (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0C8JZ64030660 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:19:36 +0100 (CET) X-DomainKeys: Sendmail DomainKeys Filter v1.0.2 cyrus.dir.garr.it q0C8JZ64030660 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=garr.it; c=simple; q=dns; b=FMK8Abs9rN74IKuPQuf2g/dE9x/8J1Np2hydhO0ZDzN7WjxgMiQQEA4TanU5WlWTD l1b+46l/+ttVPWWzoHc13gdcvER9e4S4n3T9d2NGcShKtnftSSAN/S76EQOwK8hbi3W qhc7+YxqCsdqQKEVoQelb3JwfcNFf1pUsFNnuOo= Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:19:35 +0100 (CET) From: Claudio Allocchio X-X-Sender: claudio@mac-allocchio3.elettra.trieste.it To: SM In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120111222251.0782c998@elandnews.com> Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110135951.0cb505f0@elandnews.com> <4F0CEF1E.1080303@gondrom.org> <4F0DB93B.8030806@dcrocker.net> <4F0E40B3.9090408@gondrom.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111222251.0782c998@elandnews.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (OSX 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Tobias Gondrom , appsdir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for reviews X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:20:07 -0000 > A 50% success rate is not an option to me. For your information, we had a > 100% success rate last year. I seriously don't know how that happened but > that's where we are now. One possibility: ... people are "just back" or "still" in holiday period, or are recovering the huge pile of email accumulated between Xmas and New Year. Not all of them read email 24/7, also on holidays. I'm having the same "effect" every year also at home (GARR) and around the world: people who normally answer within 24 hours are answering after 1 week, but then it goes back to normal trend. But, if this continues, we shall really ask seriously to fulfil our time scheduled procedurs to all of us, or just say "no time, sorry". > I appreciate the feedback you and the other team members have provided. It > helps me to gain a better outlook. you're doing a great job ! :-) all the best! > Best regards, > -sm > _______________________________________________ > 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 Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it Thu Jan 12 00:23:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3599A21F8473 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 00:23:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CeoWZmmcrE1Q for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 00:23:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from cyrus.dir.garr.it (cyrus.dir.garr.it [IPv6:2001:760:0:158::29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5564821F844F for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 00:23:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mac-allocchio3.elettra.trieste.it (mac-allocchio3.elettra.trieste.it [140.105.2.18]) (authenticated bits=0) by cyrus.dir.garr.it (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0C8NIaQ030734 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:23:19 +0100 (CET) X-DomainKeys: Sendmail DomainKeys Filter v1.0.2 cyrus.dir.garr.it q0C8NIaQ030734 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=garr.it; c=simple; q=dns; b=luh9jTsMMMXb4F1Zg0OMzn/Jn7W/kynv4DKlp4r21bm1rXjsKbn08wPYPD+ivtELC cvmenlrgLh4YnzGfzggFqp0f2wjHRYT5e7zGWrKR/R0dFM8RVBjQISmHx8Y2QDIQQ1j wxeDK6FpBfn87HF1e4537mWse7kT2RuAUi2UDvE= Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:23:18 +0100 (CET) From: Claudio Allocchio X-X-Sender: claudio@mac-allocchio3.elettra.trieste.it To: Tobias Gondrom In-Reply-To: <4F0E92F9.30402@gondrom.org> Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110135951.0cb505f0@elandnews.com> <4F0CEF1E.1080303@gondrom.org> <4F0DB93B.8030806@dcrocker.net> <4F0E40B3.9090408@gondrom.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111222251.0782c998@elandnews.com> <4F0E92F9.30402@gondrom.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (OSX 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: appsdir@ietf.org, sm+ietf@elandsys.com Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for reviews X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:23:35 -0000 > A second bit that might be helpful: in sec-dir drafts are assigned in > round-robin, so in case you get a deny from a reviewer you just assign the > next on the list. well, applications is so wide range that you might end into somebody who's not the correct "expert" for that topic. If you check the AppsDir page, you see the "expertise fields", and there's a reason for it. Security (I also am in charge of Security Policy ar GARR) is much more coherent and scoped :-) > And if people are on long-term holidays they usually can let Sam (the sec-dir > manager) know ahead of time so they will not get any drafts assigned during > that period. (Of course mistakes happen, for example I once missed to notify > him beforehand and then had to tell him after receiving the sec-dir > assignments email, anyway the draft got reassigned to the next reviewer > within hours.). yes, this is good. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 sm@elandsys.com Thu Jan 12 01:01:46 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DBD821F8595 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 01:01:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.626 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.626 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2A-bElyCJmMt for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 01:01:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8E0D21F8565 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 01:01:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.192]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0C91QlZ020658 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 01:01:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1326358898; i=@elandsys.com; bh=kX3ldmDTCIa8Zx3GbGCDE5Fob1WPvNgOd3rVRIeQO+s=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=sBI6exI628x+eiSXZEwkCevfShoUV1w9dsNm46ll1RV6ye527qWOb1BoHOcyCck0f rhMsm/fqo02XMyF9kVU9o0pIB1NlWt+kYFcar5xqDIxhyqtyYaf7FEDwzI9xwlTim0 kIZ+FOjVFSHCf3J7J3YSA7kqU1xzR/QEcNGrKb7Y= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120112000308.0b411580@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 X-Priority: 4 (Low) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 00:57:37 -0800 To: appsdir@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: <4F0E92F9.30402@gondrom.org> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110135951.0cb505f0@elandnews.com> <4F0CEF1E.1080303@gondrom.org> <4F0DB93B.8030806@dcrocker.net> <4F0E40B3.9090408@gondrom.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111222251.0782c998@elandnews.com> <4F0E92F9.30402@gondrom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for reviews X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:01:46 -0000 At 23:59 11-01-2012, Tobias Gondrom wrote: >well, it's not unusual for some hick-ups at the beginning of these >review processes. So some things should improve over time... Yes. >But, if I may say so: actually I don't like the idea that you as the >coordinator need to send a reminder if you don't get an ACK from the >reviewer. That creates a lot of extra work on your end. Yes. My comment are not about the extra work though. It is about not passing that extra work to the next team lead. >The best default should be that the assigned review will be done >until the deadline (of course as long as that deadline is something >reasonable >72hours) unless the reviewer sends a deny (of course >within lets say 72hours). >A second bit that might be helpful: in sec-dir drafts are assigned >in round-robin, so in case you get a deny from a reviewer you just >assign the next on the list. The difference betweens Appsdir and Secdir is that the assignments are not always round-robin. The expertise of the team is listed on the Appsdir web page as I need that information for expert reviews. For example, the review of draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-uri-04 was assigned to you as have the expertise required. draft-ietf-decade-arch-04 was assigned to Carsten (thanks for the ACK) as I know that he is going to produce a good review. >And if people are on long-term holidays they usually can let Sam >(the sec-dir manager) know ahead of time so they will not get any >drafts assigned during that period. (Of course mistakes happen, for >example I once missed to notify him beforehand and then had to tell >him after receiving the sec-dir assignments email, anyway the draft >got reassigned to the next reviewer within hours.). I have asked to be notified if the person is going on vacation. Most of the team do not notify me. >Btw. Sam might actually also have a number of nice scripts to >automate some of the steps, maybe worth for you talking with him, >whether there is something you can re-use to make your life easier. Thanks, I'll ask him about that. At 00:19 12-01-2012, Claudio Allocchio wrote: >... people are "just back" or "still" in holiday period, or are >recovering the huge pile of email accumulated between Xmas and New >Year. Not all of them read email 24/7, also on holidays. I am taking that into account. :-) At 00:23 12-01-2012, Claudio Allocchio wrote: >well, applications is so wide range that you might end into somebody >who's not the correct "expert" for that topic. If you check the >AppsDir page, you see the "expertise fields", and there's a reason >for it. Security (I also am in charge of Security Policy ar GARR) is >much more coherent and scoped :-) Yes. Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Thu Jan 12 09:31:54 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30FB321F85DA for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:31:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.625 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.625 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.026, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lrl9hyAYnBUS for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:31:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D3B021F8573 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:31:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.239.79]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0CHVY3f029434 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:31:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1326389507; i=@elandsys.com; bh=WhCXcdwlbcQ/zTigFnw/Hr04vnobhqSW7pxbcpYmlLs=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=AnBZAeGVS4PmbLccC1YtgCOPdSy78XacdNrpvbzduR/SO59mbQAtlRD7l5Tn/MZIV CjyxRlYJAhe7uhDQMEriAttXGaKNH7N02cwcgfz1qEiYxJ2Mp1T2sNS6gxfe+pb7GG 3ah2vcdd2gSxQ6SMeu/N/VSQtu25GXNyQdo3Fx6Y= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120112083445.096c7cf0@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:42:26 -0800 To: Dave CROCKER From: SM In-Reply-To: <4F0F0A65.8030004@bbiw.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110135951.0cb505f0@elandnews.com> <4F0CEF1E.1080303@gondrom.org> <4F0DB93B.8030806@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111135905.0b2d8f60@elandnews.com> <4F0F0A65.8030004@bbiw.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:38:51 -0800 Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for reviews X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 17:31:54 -0000 Hi Dave, At 08:29 12-01-2012, Dave CROCKER wrote: >Yes. I didn't catch what you meant until now. If I use a Bcc instead of a Cc, it is possible to filter the message. I'll test that with this message to see whether the MLM passes the message to the list. Best regards, -sm From salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com Thu Jan 12 21:07:50 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A7D821F8545 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:07:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.454 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.454 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.145, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yCFznsjvFSFv for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:07:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B0C121F8542 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:07:47 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7b3eae00000252a-ae-4f0fbc229522 Received: from esessmw0197.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 93.54.09514.22CBF0F4; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 06:07:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.lmf.ericsson.se (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0197.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.88) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.137.0; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 06:07:46 +0100 Received: from nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.33.3]) by mail.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EFCF2309; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 07:07:46 +0200 (EET) Received: from nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8F7151A90; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 07:07:45 +0200 (EET) Received: from Salvatore-Loretos-MacBook-Pro.local (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8141A50C92; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 07:07:45 +0200 (EET) Message-ID: <4F0FBC21.2080501@ericsson.com> Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 07:07:45 +0200 From: Salvatore Loreto User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SM References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110135442.0cb28a28@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110135442.0cb28a28@elandnews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: "appsdir@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-avtcore-srtp-vbr-audio-04 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 05:07:50 -0000 Hi SM, sure I can do it. cheers Salvatore -- Salvatore Loreto www.sloreto.com On 1/10/12 11:56 PM, SM wrote: > Hi Sal, > > Could you review draft-ietf-avtcore-srtp-vbr-audio-04 before January > 20? Please post your review to apps-discuss (see below), and DO NOT > post it to appsdir. > > The review should be sent to apps-discuss, the authors, the WG Chairs > and document shepherd, if applicable. You can use the tools alias > draft-ietf-avtcore-srtp-vbr-audio-04.all@tools.ietf.org to cover the > authors, WG chairs, and shepherd. If your review recommends > significant changes to a working-group document, you should also > consider copying the working group's mailing list. > > Suggested distribution: > To: > apps-discuss@ietf.org, draft-ietf-avtcore-srtp-vbr-audio-04.all@tools.ietf.org > Cc: iesg@ietf.org > > You can view the Apps-review template at > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/template Some previous > reviews are accessible at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/tracker > > Best regards, > -sm > > From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Fri Jan 13 08:37:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F08E921F85E1 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 08:37:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.668 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.668 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.069, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oD6Txxwu9i9Z for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 08:37:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71F4421F8584 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 08:37:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D90FC1ECB41D; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:37:54 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:37:53 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Message-ID: <20120113163752.GM4414@mail.yitter.info> References: <4ED94590.3090902@ogud.com> <20120110145640.GC6201@crankycanuck.ca> <6BC842FB-FC81-4B1A-8EFF-735314D77141@hopcount.ca> <20120111162112.GD1334@mail.yitter.info> <20120111203434.GH2024@mail.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111171949.0b4fac30@resistor.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 08:42:32 -0800 Cc: "appsdir@ietf.org" , SM Subject: Re: [appsdir] [dnsext] disposition of draft-eastlake-dnsext-xnamercode-05 (was: DNSEXT closing down soon) X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:37:58 -0000 On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 07:06:20PM -0800, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > My read of the archive is that they did a WGLC on it, but forgot the step of making it a WG item by name before doing so, so that's effectively been done already. > > Andrew, can you confirm? Yes, exactly right. More exactly, we decided that we could skip the step of renaming it, which is technically legit according to the relevant RFCs but which causes all manner of trouble with the tools, so we've decided to rename. I believe the file will be out today & I'll be sending the pub request to Ralph immediately thereafter. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From sm@elandsys.com Fri Jan 13 09:37:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F89D21F8693 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:37:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.624 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.624 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UTuulsisXYMD for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:37:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D05221F867F for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:37:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.98]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0DHaxR0019041 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:37:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1326476234; i=@elandsys.com; bh=pBJxKOY2Aou1WMsyUryoqKWRxO4OKuh3YIf0lVIK4Cc=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=kXty5BZqflI4lnskKSsVAzvHb7nP6Tyo/TvTrmDMMINRYCl0GrEY0zuKHZjKyY1xu LlbnWP4j2WKQKRLAtsItH8rtyROu4XbHjQwqMesULZp5UWWpwqckt06klHh1IWSGMJ y3BWt1rBQcHKz4eRsMBN3+4wNKMBg8ouKK8a+EDs= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120113093024.094400f8@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:34:30 -0800 To: John Klensin From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:37:52 -0800 Subject: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ishikawa-yrpunl-ucode-urn-00 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:37:23 -0000 Hi John, [Bcc to appsdir mailing list] Could you review draft-ishikawa-yrpunl-ucode-urn-00 before January 31? Please post your review to apps-discuss (see below), and DO NOT post it to appsdir. The review should be sent to apps-discuss, the authors, the WG Chairs and document shepherd, if applicable. You can use the tools alias draft-ishikawa-yrpunl-ucode-urn.all@tools.ietf.org to cover the authors, WG chairs, and shepherd. If your review recommends significant changes to a working-group document, you should also consider copying the working group's mailing list. Suggested distribution: To: apps-discuss@ietf.org, draft-ishikawa-yrpunl-ucode-urn.all@tools.ietf.org Cc: iesg@ietf.org You can view the Apps-review template at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/template Some previous reviews are accessible at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/tracker Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Sat Jan 14 13:25:07 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6DEC21F8545 for ; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 13:25:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.623 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.623 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.024, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AFzO6lSEuStD for ; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 13:25:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33F3D21F853F for ; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 13:25:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.149]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0ELOYnU024431 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 14 Jan 2012 13:24:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1326576295; i=@elandsys.com; bh=8CyxmqCv6m16owZThmXdS5002UA6pWHFMOxtFuAeIvQ=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=Td1KRgd3LPxbCPgXamXsQOxGTeeKRm8GcojVo3uqCz4IiFDRFqXrM+htbDjF1fbcE plb6wkf3TZ6FHp7Zyu7u9o2EUyyiM0jwhZSr8uWgT+WkK3ABi1AByCCuQcvJlpTjIN vvU9VmfI6K42tLMGpuIZLu2xiQi4CylQrogao7Ys= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120114131822.0983a048@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 13:21:54 -0800 To: Jiankang YAO From: SM In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110135104.0cb28508@elandnews.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110135104.0cb28508@elandnews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 13:27:12 -0800 Cc: Xiaodong Lee Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-redundancy-consider-02 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 21:25:07 -0000 Hi Would you be able to take over the review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-redundancy-consider-02? I'll leave the due date as January 20. I added some information at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/AppsDirReview about the administrative details. Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Sat Jan 14 13:26:26 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0D6721F8545 for ; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 13:26:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.623 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.623 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.024, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AIjT5XcRZvbm for ; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 13:26:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C07821F853F for ; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 13:26:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.149]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0ELOYnS024431 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 14 Jan 2012 13:24:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1326576290; i=@elandsys.com; bh=BIwRJhCf+6XTLhQFJDGl9OAtIV8l0DwI2sbBGcPAbv4=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=VV4htbxkjKGt3+jlV58DtDYJSmVde9uiJBhfUFazkJBnBVj1I+/7CcSMLAdyMFx18 8GD9PSkp6DkXVRzFtyAMfFmy2xeOcTW1gJUZccZ0lIfQ2UVFGiiUNsdyRUKLYvM97p wgFAc7opyIQl75Awc/Gj5iaCzaWY04jyIrX5NFAo= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120114131006.0983a2d8@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 13:18:10 -0800 To: Claudio Allocchio From: SM In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110135631.0cb27d58@elandnews.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110135631.0cb27d58@elandnews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 13:27:12 -0800 Cc: Aaron Stone Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-sipclf-format-05 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 21:26:26 -0000 Hi Claudio, Would you be able to take over the review of draft-ietf-sipclf-format-05? I'll leave the due date as January 20. I added some information at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/AppsDirReview about the administrative details. Best regards, -sm From lee@cnnic.cn Tue Jan 17 23:09:13 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D734321F8605 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 23:09:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yAbfL7tyQjoq for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 23:09:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp.cnnic.cn [159.226.7.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id ADA0821F85FC for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 23:09:09 -0800 (PST) X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: lee@cnnic.cn Received: from unknown127.0.0.1 (HELO xile-2684.local) (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 with SMTP; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:09:02 +0800 Message-ID: <4F166FBE.70306@cnnic.cn> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 23:07:42 -0800 From: lee User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SM References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110135104.0cb28508@elandnews.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120112165331.0a974ed0@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120112165331.0a974ed0@elandnews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: appsdir@ietf.org, Xiaodong Lee Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-redundancy-consider-02 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 07:09:14 -0000 Sorry, SM, I have received this email account for many days, I am very busy for those days, so I wonder if I could finish this task on time. Regards, Xiaodong On 1/12/12 4:54 PM, SM wrote: > Hi Xiaodong, > > I did not receive confirmation that you can take on the assignment to > review draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-redundancy-consider-02. Will you be able > to do it? > > Best regards, > -sm > From stpeter@stpeter.im Wed Jan 18 16:48:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7716411E80D1 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:48:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.807 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.807 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.208, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4mc-9i12dokC for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:48:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4A3B21F85B9 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:48:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from normz.cisco.com (unknown [72.163.0.129]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B7D3C4005B for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:57:42 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <4F176851.1010404@stpeter.im> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:48:17 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "appsdir@ietf.org" References: <20120118200700.3379.98852.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20120118200700.3379.98852.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4 OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20120118200700.3379.98852.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [appsdir] Fwd: Peter Saint-Andre's No Objection on draft-ietf-mile-rfc6046-bis-07: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:48:19 -0000 And a second one... -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Peter Saint-Andre's No Objection on draft-ietf-mile-rfc6046-bis-07: (with COMMENT) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 12:07:00 -0800 From: Peter Saint-Andre To: The IESG CC: mile-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-mile-rfc6046-bis@tools.ietf.org Peter Saint-Andre has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-mile-rfc6046-bis-07: 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.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- First, thank you for addressing the comments that Julian Reschke provided on behalf of the Apps Directorate. Section 3 states: RID systems MAY be configurable to listen on ports other than the well-known port; this configuration is out of band and out of scope for this specification. and: When performing RID callback, a responding system MUST connect to the host at the network-layer address from which the original request was sent; there is no mechanism in RID for redirected callback. This callback SHOULD use TCP port 4590 unless configured out of band to use a different port. What does it mean to configure a RID system out of band? As far as I can see there is no *in-band* configuration method (i.e., a RID system cannot be configured via RID messages), so the use of "out of band" here is confusing. I suggest removing this terminology in both instances. The ABNF reference is old; please change [RFC2234] to [RFC5234]. Section 3 states: RID systems MUST use TLS version 1.1 [RFC4346] or higher with mutual authentication for confidentiality, identification, and authentication, as in [RFC2818], when transporting RID messages over HTTPS. The phrase "as in [RFC2818]" makes it sound as if the rules specified in RFC 2818 are the kind of rules that might be used, not that those rules must be followed. If the intent is that the identity-checking rules in RFC 2818 always apply to RID systems, I suggest changing the text to: RID systems MUST use TLS version 1.1 [RFC4346] or higher with mutual authentication for confidentiality, identification, and authentication when transporting RID messages over HTTPS. RID systems MUST follow the rules specified in [RFC2818] regarding verification of endpoint identities. From stpeter@stpeter.im Wed Jan 18 16:53:45 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A8CE11E80DA for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:53:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.801 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.202, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pWs1LtLnqPMQ for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:53:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 545FC11E80D1 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:53:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from normz.cisco.com (unknown [72.163.0.129]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0D9CD40058 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:56:58 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <4F176825.4090503@stpeter.im> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:47:33 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "appsdir@ietf.org" References: <20120117212351.29835.51970.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20120117212351.29835.51970.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4 OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20120117212351.29835.51970.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [appsdir] Fwd: Peter Saint-Andre's Discuss on draft-ietf-kitten-sasl-saml-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:53:45 -0000 I thought it might be interesting to forward a few of my IESG reviews to the list here just as a point of comparison (not that they are necessarily any better than what our AppsDir folks are providing!). -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Peter Saint-Andre's Discuss on draft-ietf-kitten-sasl-saml-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:23:51 -0800 From: Peter Saint-Andre To: The IESG CC: kitten-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-kitten-sasl-saml@tools.ietf.org Peter Saint-Andre has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-kitten-sasl-saml-08: 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 refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a valuable document and I support its publication. However, in addition to the comments provided below (some of which border on DISCUSS points), I'd like to chat about internationalization. Section 3.1 states: Domain name is specified in [RFC1035]. Does this technology have no support for internationalized domain names (IDNs) as defined by RFC 5890 - RFC 5894? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 1... s/is a modular specification that// OLD As currently envisioned, this mechanism is to allow the interworking between SASL and SAML in order to assert identity and other attributes to relying parties. NEW The mechanism defined in this document enables interworking between SASL and SAML in order to assert identity and other attributes to relying parties. Question: in order for what to assert identity? An application? A client? A user? "This specification is appropriate for use when a browser is available." When is it not appropriate? What are its limitations? Section 1.2... In Section 1 we find: The mechanism assumes a security layer, such as Transport Layer Security (TLS [RFC5246]), will continue to be used. However, here we find: "the SAML mechanism MUST only be used over channels protected by TLS" Therefore is the "such as" in Section 1 correct? If so, then I think the text in Section 1.2 could be reworded as follows: Because this mechanism transports information that should not be controlled by an attacker, the SAML mechanism MUST only be used over channels protected by TLS, or over similar integrity protected and authenticated channels. In addition, when TLS is used the client MUST successfully validate the server certificate. Section 2... This is hard to read: 2. The Relying Party redirects the browser via an HTTP redirect (as described in Section 10.3 of [RFC2616]) to the Identity Provider (IdP) or an IdP discovery service with as parameters an authentication request that contains the name of resource being requested, a browser cookie and a return URL as specified in Section 3.1 of the SAML profiles 2.0 specification [OASIS.saml-profiles-2.0-os]. I suggest: 2. The Relying Party redirects the browser via an HTTP redirect (as described in Section 10.3 of [RFC2616]) to the Identity Provider (IdP) or an IdP discovery service. When it does so, it includes the following parameters: (1) an authentication request that contains the name of resource being requested, (2) a browser cookie, and (3) a return URL as specified in Section 3.1 of the SAML profiles 2.0 specification [OASIS.saml-profiles-2.0-os]. In the paragraph following that one (bullet point 3), what does it mean to "authorize the authentication to the Relying Party"? What entity is the user authorizing here? The IdP? s/Universal Resource Identifier/Uniform Resource Identifier/ This is a bit terse: 4. The SASL client now sends an empty response, as authentication continues via the normal SAML flow. You might consider citing the following paragraph from RFC 4422: Where the mechanism specifies that the server is to return additional data to the client with a successful outcome and this field is unavailable or unused, the additional data is sent as a challenge whose response is empty. After receiving this response, the server then indicates the successful outcome. (That is, in this case the server is waiting for information it will receive via the SAML flow before it can indicate the successful outcome.) We might want to expand a bit on this: 6. Next the client authenticates to the IdP. The manner in which the end user is authenticated to the IdP and any policies surrounding such authentication is out of scope for SAML and hence for this draft. This step happens out of band from SASL. For example, do any specifications provide guidance here (perhaps to use basic or digest HTTP authentication)? Also, why say "client" in the first sentence and "end user" in the second sentence? Does that difference have meaning? Section 3... The mechanism is capable of transferring an authorization identity (via the "gs2-header"). Does this mean that an authorization identity can be communicated only when GS2 is used? The third mechanism message is from client to the server, and is the fixed message consisting of "=". You might append "(i.e., an empty response)". The SASL server now validates the response it received from the client via HTTP or HTTPS, as specified in the SAML specification That is a bit unclear -- are we assuming that the SASL exchange takes place over HTTP? The examples (IMAP, XMPP) belie such an assumption. Or do you mean that the SASL server (as SAML relying party) needs to make a connection between (1) its application-specific SASL exchange with the SASL client and (2) its HTTP-based SAML exchange with the IdP? Section 4... This is a bit underspecified: The mutual authentication property of this mechanism relies on successfully comparing the TLS server identity with the negotiated target name. Since the TLS channel is managed by the application outside of the GSS-API mechanism, the mechanism itself is unable to confirm the name while the application is able to perform this comparison for the mechanism. For this reason, applications MUST match the TLS server identity with the target name, as discussed in [RFC6125]. In particular, see Section 13.7.1.2.1 of RFC 6120 for an example of the kind of thing you probably ought to specify. Section 5... At the least, citing RFC 5056 ("On the Use of Channel Bindings to Secure Channels") seems appropriate here. Section 6... In the XMPP flow, I would change to for the error that occurs if no SAML Authentication Request can be constructed. Later in the flow, I would also change to (e.g., because the credentials are wrong). In the XMPP flow, I think you don't need Steps 8-11. That's post-auth stuff specific to XMPP. The IMAP example uses "xmpp.example.com" -- I assume you might want to change that to "imap.example.com" or "mail.example.com". Section 8... The registration does not include all the information requested from the template in Section 7.1.1 of RFC 4422 (e.g., intended usage). From stpeter@stpeter.im Wed Jan 18 16:53:45 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4753211E80D1 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:53:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.195 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.195 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.796, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_210=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_27=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EphQnA1av8xG for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:53:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55B5611E80D7 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:53:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from normz.cisco.com (unknown [72.163.0.129]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A7AFF4005B for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:57:51 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <4F17685A.7080207@stpeter.im> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:48:26 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "appsdir@ietf.org" References: <20120119004237.11964.51629.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20120119004237.11964.51629.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4 OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20120119004237.11964.51629.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [appsdir] Fwd: Peter Saint-Andre's Discuss on draft-ietf-mile-rfc6045-bis-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:53:45 -0000 And a third. :) -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Peter Saint-Andre's Discuss on draft-ietf-mile-rfc6045-bis-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:42:37 -0800 From: Peter Saint-Andre To: The IESG CC: mile-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-mile-rfc6045-bis@tools.ietf.org Peter Saint-Andre has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-mile-rfc6045-bis-06: 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 refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- First, I'd like to thank you for addressing the comments provided by Larry Masinter in his Apps Directorate review. There are a few topics I'd like to chat about. 1. The document does not pass ID-nits! You might need to fix the document in order to address the following errors and warnings: == Missing Reference: 'XMLschema' is mentioned on line 3519, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC5735' is mentioned on line 1811, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'CVRF' is defined on line 3720, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3741 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4646 (Obsoleted by RFC 5646) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 6046 2. This document inherits the definition of Node from the NodeName class in RFC 5070. Although the IODEF specification defines a NodeName as a fully-qualified domain name, it does not provide a definition of that term and specifically does not say whether internationalized domain names (IDNs) are allowed. This is a significant oversight for a modern protocol. 3. The definition of AcrossNationalBoundaries is confusing. First it says that this value must "MUST"?) be set if the message will cross national boundaries (and how exactly is the sender to determine whether the the message will in fact cross national boundaries?). Then it says that this value is ("MUST BE"?) used when additional handling and protection restrictions based on the data type and location, which is not the same thing as crossing national boundaries. Then it says that this value must be set if the security requirements of the message might not apply to all nations. Then it says that this value must be set if the traffic is of a type that may have different restrictions in other nations. This is such a muddle that I don't see how an SP could choose any value other than AcrossNationalBoundaries. 4. In Section 7, some of the examples include XML comments. Are these allowed? Are any other aspects of XML disallowed (e.g., processing instructions and external DTD subsets)? Can conforming applications ignore or reject such data? I think the processing rules and security considerations are underspecified here. At the least, it would be helpful to cite RFC 3270 and RFC 3023 with regard to the use of XML in IETF application protocols. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Introduction would be easier to read if the summary of changes since RFC 6045 were moved to an Appendix. Please expand "FBI" on first use, preferably via "U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI)". Section 4.1.1 introduces the BOOLEAN data type, which is implemented as the xs:boolean type from W3C XML Schema. It would be helpful to note that there are two lexical representations of boolean in XML schema. I suggest changing the text as follows. OLD The BOOLEAN data type is implemented as "xs:boolean" [XMLschema] in the schema. NEW The BOOLEAN data type is implemented as "xs:boolean" [XMLschema] in the schema. Note that there are two lexical representations for boolean in [XMLschema]: '1' or 'true' for TRUE and '0' or 'false' for FALSE. In Section 5, why is this document defining a 'lang' attribute when any XML data can include the 'xml:lang' attribute via inheritance from the core XML specificiation? The class definitions are inconsistent. I see several styles, such as: One. Zero or one. One or more. REQUIRED. REQUIRED. ENUM. One or many. REQUIRED. Zero or One. URL. Zero to many. It would help to make those consistent. Section 5.1 states: The RIDPolicy Class includes the ability to embed an IODEF or other XML schema document in the ReportSchema element. I don't think you're embedding XML schema documents, I think you're embedding XML documents that conform to schemas other than IODEF. Section 5.1 states: PolicyRegion One or more. REQUIRED. The values for the attribute "region" .... Is that supposed to be "PolicyRegion"? In Section 5.1.1, is "XMLDocumen" a typo? In Section 5.3, why is the IncidentSource restricted to FQDNs (Nodes)? It seems that the source of an incident might be an IP address, an email address, etc. This text in Section 5.4 is confusing: The RID schema declares a namespace of "iodef-rid-2.0" and registers it per [XMLNames]. Each IODEF-RID document MUST use the "iodef-rid-2.0" namespace in the top-level element RID-Document. In fact the namespace is not "iodef-rid-2.0" but "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-rid-2.0". In addition, the "Namespaces in XML 1.0" specification says nothing about registration of XML namespaces; perhaps you meant to cite RFC 3688? In Section 5.5.1, do you really intend to include schemas, or documents defined by other schemes? The text in Section 6 is a bit misleading when it says that "The IODEF model MUST be fully implemented to ensure proper parsing of all RID messages." That's true only for RID messages that contain IODEF payloads, not RID messages that contain payloads defined by other schemas. In Section 8, the XML comment is quite distracting. Why not include this information in the xs:annotation element? Section 9.1 states: o The originator of a Request MUST use a detached signature to sign at least one of the original elements contained in the RecordItem class to provide authentication to all upstream participants in the trace or those involved in the investigation. Is this required even in cases where channel encryption (e.g., TLS) is used between the parties to a PeerToPeer exchange that doesn't involve upstream participants? (By the way, it seems that some of the examples in the spec violate the rule from SEction 9.1.) In Section 9.1, do you mean "MAY" in the text "The IODEF/RID document may be encrypted"? The same question applies to "The action taken in the Result message may be encrypted". The difference between conformance and normal usage is especially confusing in a sentence like this: A Request, or any other message type that may be relayed through RID systems other than the intended destination as a result of trust relationships, may be encrypted for the intended recipient. I encourage you to check all the text in Section 9.1 (and elsewhere) to make it clear whether you intend your guidelines to have conformance force. It's a bit confusing to say in Section 9.1 "See Section 9 for a discussion on public key infrastructure (PKI) and other security requirements." I think you mean Section 9.3. :) Section 9.2 states: The transport specifications are fully defined in a separate document [RFC6046-bis]. I think you mean "A transport specification" because it seems that you are leaving the door open to defining other transport bindings in the future. Section 9.2 states: The RID protocol must be able to guarantee delivery and meet the necessary security requirements of a state-of-the-art protocol. In order to guarantee delivery, TCP should be considered as the underlying protocol within the current network standard practices. There's a lot more to truly guaranteed delivery at the application layer than simply using TCP as the underlying transport. Do you mean at least once delivery, at most once, or something else? Do messages need to be persisted in case the messaging system crashes? And so on. You might consider dropping this paragraph, or clarifying what you really mean by guaranteed delivery. I find this a bit confusing: Consortiums may vary their selected transport mechanisms and thus decide upon a mutual protocol to use for transport when communicating with peers in a neighboring consortium using RID. RID systems MUST implement and deploy HTTPS as defined in the transport document [RFC6046-bis] and optionally support other protocols such as the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP) [RFC3080]. If consortia are allowed to decide upon their own preferred transport bindings, why is HTTP/TLS a MUST-deploy technology? As to "optionally support other protocols", clearly someone would need to define bindings for those protocols (BEEP or XMPP or SIP or whatever) before they could be used -- it appears that one can't simply start sending RID documents over those protocols without some definition of the binding (as is already done for things like SOAP). So the current text is a bit misleading. Section 11 states: Registrant Contact: See the "Author's Address" section of this document. However, RFC 3688 states: In the case of IETF developed standards, the Registrant will be the IESG. From masinter@adobe.com Wed Jan 18 17:01:10 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E893C11E80E4 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:01:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.163 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.163 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.764, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_210=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_27=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y449vv6ahBxe for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:01:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod6og106.obsmtp.com (exprod6og106.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.191]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E06211E80E8 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:01:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from outbound-smtp-2.corp.adobe.com ([193.104.215.16]) by exprod6ob106.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTxdrOhf/lP6bNhWCdpVravNVZidYqZfN@postini.com; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:01:05 PST Received: from inner-relay-4.eur.adobe.com (inner-relay-4b [10.128.4.237]) by outbound-smtp-2.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id q0J10g2U020127; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:00:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from nahub02.corp.adobe.com (nahub02.corp.adobe.com [10.8.189.98]) by inner-relay-4.eur.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id q0J10ePl011136; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:00:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.95]) by nahub02.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.98]) with mapi; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:00:40 -0800 From: Larry Masinter To: Peter Saint-Andre , "appsdir@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:00:37 -0800 Thread-Topic: [appsdir] Fwd: Peter Saint-Andre's Discuss on draft-ietf-mile-rfc6045-bis-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Thread-Index: AczWRNCiRfPfyte6Q/G0iGNFjRQXDgAAJTgA Message-ID: References: <20120119004237.11964.51629.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4F17685A.7080207@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <4F17685A.7080207@stpeter.im> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [appsdir] Fwd: Peter Saint-Andre's Discuss on draft-ietf-mile-rfc6045-bis-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 01:01:10 -0000 My concern about the document was that they were using controlled vocabular= ies without a process for converging on meanings in those vocabularies, and= I gave a couple of examples. They fixed the examples but didn't actually a= ddress the core of the problem that I was trying to raise. The " AcrossNationalBoundaries" is just an example. But I don't know how to= teach the design issue around controlled vocabularies and standards. Larry -----Original Message----- From: appsdir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:appsdir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Peter Saint-Andre Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 4:48 PM To: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: [appsdir] Fwd: Peter Saint-Andre's Discuss on draft-ietf-mile-rfc6= 045-bis-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) And a third. :) -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Peter Saint-Andre's Discuss on draft-ietf-mile-rfc6045-bis-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:42:37 -0800 From: Peter Saint-Andre To: The IESG CC: mile-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-mile-rfc6045-bis@tools.ietf.org Peter Saint-Andre has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-mile-rfc6045-bis-06: 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 introduc= tory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- First, I'd like to thank you for addressing the comments provided by Larry = Masinter in his Apps Directorate review. There are a few topics I'd like to chat about. 1. The document does not pass ID-nits! You might need to fix the document i= n order to address the following errors and warnings: =3D=3D Missing Reference: 'XMLschema' is mentioned on line 3519, but not = defined =3D=3D Missing Reference: 'RFC5735' is mentioned on line 1811, but not de= fined =3D=3D Unused Reference: 'CVRF' is defined on line 3720, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3741 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4646 (Obsoleted by RFC 5646) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 6046 2. This document inherits the definition of Node from the NodeName class in= RFC 5070. Although the IODEF specification defines a NodeName as a fully-q= ualified domain name, it does not provide a definition of that term and spe= cifically does not say whether internationalized domain names (IDNs) are al= lowed. This is a significant oversight for a modern protocol. 3. The definition of AcrossNationalBoundaries is confusing. First it says t= hat this value must "MUST"?) be set if the message will cross national boun= daries (and how exactly is the sender to determine whether the the message = will in fact cross national boundaries?). Then it says that this value is (= "MUST BE"?) used when additional handling and protection restrictions based= on the data type and location, which is not the same thing as crossing nat= ional boundaries. Then it says that this value must be set if the security = requirements of the message might not apply to all nations. Then it says th= at this value must be set if the traffic is of a type that may have differe= nt restrictions in other nations. This is such a muddle that I don't see ho= w an SP could choose any value other than AcrossNationalBoundaries. 4. In Section 7, some of the examples include XML comments. Are these allow= ed? Are any other aspects of XML disallowed (e.g., processing instructions = and external DTD subsets)? Can conforming applications ignore or reject suc= h data? I think the processing rules and security considerations are unders= pecified here. At the least, it would be helpful to cite RFC 3270 and RFC 3= 023 with regard to the use of XML in IETF application protocols. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Introduction would be easier to read if the summary of changes since RF= C 6045 were moved to an Appendix. Please expand "FBI" on first use, preferably via "U.S. Federal Bureau of In= vestigations (FBI)". Section 4.1.1 introduces the BOOLEAN data type, which is implemented as the= xs:boolean type from W3C XML Schema. It would be helpful to note that ther= e are two lexical representations of boolean in XML schema. I suggest chang= ing the text as follows. OLD The BOOLEAN data type is implemented as "xs:boolean" [XMLschema] in the schema. NEW The BOOLEAN data type is implemented as "xs:boolean" [XMLschema] in the schema. Note that there are two lexical representations for boolean in [XMLschema]: '1' or 'true' for TRUE and '0' or 'false' for FALSE. In Section 5, why is this document defining a 'lang' attribute when any XML= data can include the 'xml:lang' attribute via inheritance from the core XM= L specificiation? The class definitions are inconsistent. I see several styles, such as: One. Zero or one. One or more. REQUIRED. REQUIRED. ENUM. One or many. REQUIRED. Zero or One. URL. Zero to many. It would help to make those consistent. Section 5.1 states: The RIDPolicy Class includes the ability to embed an IODEF or other XML schema document in the ReportSchema element. I don't think you're embedding XML schema documents, I think you're embeddi= ng XML documents that conform to schemas other than IODEF. Section 5.1 states: PolicyRegion One or more. REQUIRED. The values for the attribute "region" .... Is that supposed to be "PolicyRegion"? In Section 5.1.1, is "XMLDocumen" a typo? In Section 5.3, why is the IncidentSource restricted to FQDNs (Nodes)? It seems that the source of an incident might be an IP address, an email ad= dress, etc. This text in Section 5.4 is confusing: The RID schema declares a namespace of "iodef-rid-2.0" and registers it per [XMLNames]. Each IODEF-RID document MUST use the "iodef-rid-2.0" namespace in the top-level element RID-Document. In fact the namespace is not "iodef-rid-2.0" but "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:io= def-rid-2.0". In addition, the "Namespaces in XML 1.0" specification says n= othing about registration of XML namespaces; perhaps you meant to cite RFC = 3688? In Section 5.5.1, do you really intend to include schemas, or documents def= ined by other schemes? The text in Section 6 is a bit misleading when it says that "The IODEF mode= l MUST be fully implemented to ensure proper parsing of all RID messages." = That's true only for RID messages that contain IODEF payloads, not RID mess= ages that contain payloads defined by other schemas. In Section 8, the XML comment is quite distracting. Why not include this in= formation in the xs:annotation element? Section 9.1 states: o The originator of a Request MUST use a detached signature to sign at least one of the original elements contained in the RecordItem class to provide authentication to all upstream participants in the trace or those involved in the investigation. Is this required even in cases where channel encryption (e.g., TLS) is used= between the parties to a PeerToPeer exchange that doesn't involve upstream= participants? (By the way, it seems that some of the examples in the spec = violate the rule from SEction 9.1.) In Section 9.1, do you mean "MAY" in the text "The IODEF/RID document may b= e encrypted"? The same question applies to "The action taken in the Result = message may be encrypted". The difference between conformance and normal us= age is especially confusing in a sentence like this: A Request, or any other message type that may be relayed through RID systems other than the intended destination as a result of trust relationships, may be encrypted for the intended recipient. I encourage you to check all the text in Section 9.1 (and elsewhere) to ma= ke it clear whether you intend your guidelines to have conformance force. It's a bit confusing to say in Section 9.1 "See Section 9 for a discussion = on public key infrastructure (PKI) and other security requirements." I thin= k you mean Section 9.3. :) Section 9.2 states: The transport specifications are fully defined in a separate document [RFC6046-bis]. I think you mean "A transport specification" because it seems that you are = leaving the door open to defining other transport bindings in the future. Section 9.2 states: The RID protocol must be able to guarantee delivery and meet the necessary security requirements of a state-of-the-art protocol. In order to guarantee delivery, TCP should be considered as the underlying protocol within the current network standard practices. There's a lot more to truly guaranteed delivery at the application layer th= an simply using TCP as the underlying transport. Do you mean at least once = delivery, at most once, or something else? Do messages need to be persisted= in case the messaging system crashes? And so on. You might consider droppi= ng this paragraph, or clarifying what you really mean by guaranteed deliver= y. I find this a bit confusing: Consortiums may vary their selected transport mechanisms and thus decide upon a mutual protocol to use for transport when communicating with peers in a neighboring consortium using RID. RID systems MUST implement and deploy HTTPS as defined in the transport document [RFC6046-bis] and optionally support other protocols such as the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP) [RFC3080]. If consortia are allowed to decide upon their own preferred transport bindi= ngs, why is HTTP/TLS a MUST-deploy technology? As to "optionally support other protocols", clearly someone would need to d= efine bindings for those protocols (BEEP or XMPP or SIP or whatever) before= they could be used -- it appears that one can't simply start sending RID d= ocuments over those protocols without some definition of the binding (as is= already done for things like SOAP). So the current text is a bit misleadin= g. Section 11 states: Registrant Contact: See the "Author's Address" section of this document. However, RFC 3688 states: In the case of IETF developed standards, the Registrant will be the IESG= . _______________________________________________ appsdir mailing list appsdir@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/appsdir From msk@cloudmark.com Thu Jan 19 10:03:36 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 507A721F85FC for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:03:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.584 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.584 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.015, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FyG32J8Jl0Ac for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:03:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A417D21F85DA for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:03:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from spite.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.72) by EXCH-HTCAS901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:03:25 -0800 Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:03:34 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "appsdir@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:03:33 -0800 Thread-Topic: [dnsext] AppsDir Review of draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode Thread-Index: AczVHhoqRgCYBJRhRJa/eqti4+92AgBthChA Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [appsdir] [dnsext] AppsDir Review of draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 18:03:36 -0000 To apps-directorate only: > -----Original Message----- > From: Donald Eastlake [mailto:d3e3e3@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 5:44 AM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy > Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org; draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode.all@tools.ietf.or= g; dnsext@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [dnsext] AppsDir Review of draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode >=20 > > My point is not so much the position of the text as its purpose. > >=A0You're right of course about the title, but it's not clear to me what > > is being clarified with respect to the status bits, since you > > explicitly say they are unchanged from their definitions. =A0That is, i= t > > seems to me deleting Section 2 entirely wouldn't remove anything from > > the document. > > > > If the purpose is merely to restate their definitions or refer to > > them so the Section 4 text is more meaningful, then informative > > references to the places where those are when you talk about them in > > Section 4 seems simpler than what's there now. >=20 > The purpose is to clarify as the title says. I do not accept your > position that text which does not change something therefore cannot be > a clarification. Am I off-base with my criticism here? I'd like some other opinions, please= . -MSK From sm@elandsys.com Thu Jan 19 11:16:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ECCC21F8603 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:16:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.621 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.621 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.022, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mEfhDWLCZg00 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:16:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3197921F85FF for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:16:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.233.89]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0JJFuYA020221 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:16:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1327000569; i=@elandsys.com; bh=R08nQOtMvMXwpXBPjLhM21iXPKuwQxyQXI8rE4FZWBg=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=DI6m2vXi96OB22Cy+RkrMscoaEr8va0XZDkRZ14mB9LenxX/BzK7On4v9iO4moCSi 6t9dJWOqcobjcolWjCePqeHeQMZH5kdA6IMb6Xz02M+ZI9zuxFEv/RIlo1bjTyL37z l/AvpdQxhcJn4o3fOcyR8VqOGF3VlYmPKO2mXN2w= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1327000569; i=@elandsys.com; bh=R08nQOtMvMXwpXBPjLhM21iXPKuwQxyQXI8rE4FZWBg=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=TtLRXIVcWgf3H4Tzm4Z5KJW3vnfoQ14PQYmDakDMHnRjB9FRNz4l0+Brywx7s8xOO vKFNhU4Tjdak5tmTlDLSll+6tkG3q7SXWvV+mu5FtCTs66FN/RnFTCrWKDMIGq15ey eU4tVYL0vEWa6RV7Bz8tnKWC8jWQYF4olveMti94= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120119102726.0a34d1b8@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:15:37 -0800 To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" From: SM In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [appsdir] [dnsext] AppsDir Review of draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 19:16:19 -0000 Hi Murray, At 10:03 19-01-2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >To apps-directorate only: [snip] >Am I off-base with my criticism here? I'd like some other opinions, please. The AppsDir review is at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg04090.html After reading your follow-up messages, I don't think that you are off-base. I didn't find a clear answer to your comments. Basically, you are saying "why is that section in there" while the discussion is about whether an unchanged definition falls under clarification. Best regards, -sm From msk@cloudmark.com Thu Jan 19 11:23:00 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1F8A21F8539 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:23:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.584 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.584 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.015, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jhsaq5hBsAtM for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:23:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AF2A21F858E for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:23:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from malice.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.71) by EXCH-HTCAS901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:22:50 -0800 Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:22:59 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "appsdir@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:22:58 -0800 Thread-Topic: [appsdir] [dnsext] AppsDir Review of draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode Thread-Index: AczW3tEoAWdHbvK/T/S4FknDno5lFgAAN0Rw Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120119102726.0a34d1b8@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120119102726.0a34d1b8@elandnews.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [appsdir] [dnsext] AppsDir Review of draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 19:23:01 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: SM [mailto:sm+ietf@elandsys.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 11:16 AM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy > Cc: appsdir@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [appsdir] [dnsext] AppsDir Review of draft-ietf-dnsext-xname= rcode >=20 > Basically, you are saying "why is that section in there" while the > discussion is about whether an unchanged definition falls under > clarification. Right, and I'm wondering if it's reasonable to push harder on that point or= let it go. From sm@elandsys.com Thu Jan 19 12:03:16 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B8EE21F843A for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:03:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.62 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vi+2Aws4MRw0 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:03:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20D1C21F8422 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:03:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.233.89]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0JK2x99020669 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:03:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1327003391; i=@elandsys.com; bh=Wzm2cFr5MdOsGqCNH0qqsOygJ35SUZdJQ6W8hPjJ+L4=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=XNLPyJqWal/6djtnaCLYBZqp/DVgSVxQ0D/VE/3ExiMuZPLPpnrOxqEBO9vZzI2t9 5EBzO15M+mP3qysBKE0LbXMQsgVblk+wS+x3vPqnYmyDCSa/0wxRNjgmmH037EWLoa cWUHAQjgt9NRoP2WvoqhvXrLSUDHJIMP6/JDkzd0= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1327003391; i=@elandsys.com; bh=Wzm2cFr5MdOsGqCNH0qqsOygJ35SUZdJQ6W8hPjJ+L4=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=rvuc4QPDW1MYW6g8Up1cYLvxS0q2fetKXo1TS+SOdBPmuzttVruSGkUxU2GBgKZ1k qjzUWXr92akhkur6HCl4rGz6pwEwpc8Vpo6lfaJ4ErtSyAT0QxxLNEG+eFJ7jdyVXh pHXAJjEUQBFvvaWHXxu7ruJ9eBA9dwxLPri3L9ks= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120119112837.0a863d90@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:01:48 -0800 To: appsdir@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120119102726.0a34d1b8@elandnews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [appsdir] [dnsext] AppsDir Review of draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 20:03:16 -0000 Hi Murray, At 11:22 19-01-2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >Right, and I'm wondering if it's reasonable to push harder on that >point or let it go. I'd say let it go. It's difficult to push harder if an argument is non-technical. Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Thu Jan 19 13:38:29 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 154A621F85CE for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:38:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.62 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zLjdFyKYe6dK for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:38:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8732B21F859E for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:38:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.233.89]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0JLbwvt026072 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:38:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1327009095; i=@elandsys.com; bh=7GCOdcxQNn06mezDBPOF1wWWLODap/En35Sz3a5CM+A=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=FlG8NjZ4hPsb2C/jfSCGGNIhQmRyb/rYlVRwQjeiM4AW2GIAN11NLnR9vASMNgntX xVyk8smu4JUOH5KVL932ZPWExnsnE7flyPZWCgqM9axi9GFDVgu5q9KF559twoJAmf avm2zJS7/h4vWD8qUge3fHL0hAu7BeN6ttOfRE8w= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1327009095; i=@elandsys.com; bh=7GCOdcxQNn06mezDBPOF1wWWLODap/En35Sz3a5CM+A=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=yA8/LGSiSdgLMOC8lF2XK6dpTZFtyNd7GJlzR70i0rWn/2QvzZIwwOuCFJmEPxAjY B9DHT80XIm4qfFNcX10KMfKyZfSb42qqt/U48NzB/c0Tb/uOhFmQJnNZqLAooql86H MdImACHAhA7iipzBrqcIkMrjsF5HktKiMoWjByYY= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120119130848.0a459418@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:37:32 -0800 To: appsdir@ietf.org From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [appsdir] Joint Review Experiment X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 21:38:29 -0000 Hello, In case some of you missed it, there is some documentation about the Directorate Review Process at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/AppsDirReview The guidelines are documented on the web page so that we can have a clear picture of how things work. During some previous discussion on this list, the idea of a joint review experiment was mentioned. I'll list the five steps: (a) Assignment to first reviewer (b) First reviewer acks assignment (c) First reviewer contacts another reviewer from the team (d) Second reviewer acks (e) Joint review performed The reason for the ACKs is so that I can track who is doing what. I will use a deadline of over a week as I did for the last batch of reviews. The expertise of each reviewer, the working groups the person tracks and who is available are listed at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate I understand that it is not easy to produce a joint review. As it is an experiment, we can tune the details as we go along. You can find out who has reviews at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/report/1 I suggest that you don't pick anyone from that list unless it is necessary (e.g. there isn't anybody with the required expertise available). Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Thu Jan 19 14:43:58 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EDA321F86D8; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:43:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.619 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xYEcVNCQ7D9Q; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:43:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8041921F859F; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:43:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.233.89]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0JMhWJB025552 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:43:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1327013026; i=@elandsys.com; bh=nRz6cmxTkFbw4Vxrau3Xi3/ChTBBIXAgSqQv3pTfzhU=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:References:Mime-Version: Content-Type; b=HE1ONOd2EY+8Y6ciXgLfzfw+Z1gvuB6D6NxuhiVfgRoUNRlynkWa04aasMvlCt3V0 KpMfUXT3AOCfVAU8COtj4BKXHCluHfitF+2yPKAlgJMkn6hInFvh+Zb+QzfB2X5w76 HBumbqJ3M8wPV7bAPnUivouDv83u6veHDDZd6UZ4= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1327013026; i=@elandsys.com; bh=nRz6cmxTkFbw4Vxrau3Xi3/ChTBBIXAgSqQv3pTfzhU=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:References:Mime-Version: Content-Type; b=TnKaiD4C8s1MmivVu+GIvlOdK1tWusz177wLeNjJ5milLG3QgrZmHKn9Ke4sTDp98 KF0oBKcPGvCDy9hqT58IYfKmKMHM1oS76dTyAaEW43CWv7kLKESdJ8jP9k7HKFPGQY 0q4Iw32F2sUD9s/9PjgSow62HsaTM/bOVwohKnfo= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120119142440.0634f7a8@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:41:40 -0800 To: Haibin Song , Richard Woundy From: S Moonesamy References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120110211953.0e06fed0@elandnews.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120110224228.0ccc4770@elandnews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: decade@ietf.org, appsdir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [appsdir] Apps review of DECADE drafts X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:43:58 -0000 Dear DECADE WG Chairs, As I mentioned in a previous email, the Applications Area Directorate has identified draft-ietf-decade-problem-statement-04 and draft-ietf-decade-reqs-05 for review. Could you please tell me when the revision of draft-ietf-decade-problem-statement-04 will be submitted? Regards, S. Moonesamy http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate From richard_woundy@cable.comcast.com Thu Jan 19 14:48:49 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7707C21F8599; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:48:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.847 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.847 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=3.616, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 44DK7wkOGq3y; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:48:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com (PacdcIMO01.cable.comcast.com [24.40.8.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8144C21F857D; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:48:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from ([24.40.56.116]) by pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP id 5503620.149715022; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 17:48:31 -0500 Received: from PACDCEXMB05.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::a5b0:e5c4:df1b:2367]) by pacdcexhub03.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::5527:6d6b:29a7:f414%15]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 17:48:31 -0500 From: "Woundy, Richard" To: "'sm+ietf@elandsys.com'" , "'haibin.song@huawei.com'" Thread-Topic: Apps review of DECADE drafts Thread-Index: AQHM1vvR3jrrdOpRnEW5Txo4af4k9JYUSvbT Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:48:30 +0000 Message-ID: <1CA25301D2219F40B3AA37201F0EACD1150603A3@PACDCEXMB05.cable.comcast.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120119142440.0634f7a8@elandnews.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [24.40.50.240] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:56:54 -0800 Cc: "'decade@ietf.org'" , "'appsdir@ietf.org'" , "Woundy, Richard" Subject: Re: [appsdir] Apps review of DECADE drafts X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:48:49 -0000 The document draft-ietf-decade-problem-statement-04 is held up due to a muc= h deeper review I undertook as document shepherd. I need to communicate a l= ot of changes and questions back to the authors as a result of this review.= I don't think this document is ready for your review at this time. -- Rich ----- Original Message ----- From: S Moonesamy [mailto:sm+ietf@elandsys.com] Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 05:41 PM=0A= To: Haibin Song ; Woundy, Richard Cc: appsdir@ietf.org ; decade@ietf.org Subject: RE: Apps review of DECADE drafts Dear DECADE WG Chairs, As I mentioned in a previous email, the Applications Area Directorate=20 has identified draft-ietf-decade-problem-statement-04 and=20 draft-ietf-decade-reqs-05 for review. Could you please tell me when=20 the revision of draft-ietf-decade-problem-statement-04 will be submitted? Regards, S. Moonesamy http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate From stpeter@stpeter.im Thu Jan 19 14:57:30 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2BBD21F857A; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:57:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.656 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.656 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.057, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aBymSZQjpzrU; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:57:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 086B821F84FA; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:57:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-124.cisco.com (unknown [64.101.72.124]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6486B40058; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:06:56 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <4F189FD6.5020008@stpeter.im> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:57:26 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Woundy, Richard" References: <1CA25301D2219F40B3AA37201F0EACD1150603A3@PACDCEXMB05.cable.comcast.com> In-Reply-To: <1CA25301D2219F40B3AA37201F0EACD1150603A3@PACDCEXMB05.cable.comcast.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4 OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "'haibin.song@huawei.com'" , "'decade@ietf.org'" , "'appsdir@ietf.org'" , "'sm+ietf@elandsys.com'" Subject: Re: [appsdir] Apps review of DECADE drafts X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:57:30 -0000 Rich, thanks for letting us know! On 1/19/12 3:48 PM, Woundy, Richard wrote: > The document draft-ietf-decade-problem-statement-04 is held up due to a much deeper review I undertook as document shepherd. I need to communicate a lot of changes and questions back to the authors as a result of this review. I don't think this document is ready for your review at this time. > > -- Rich > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: S Moonesamy [mailto:sm+ietf@elandsys.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 05:41 PM > To: Haibin Song ; Woundy, Richard > Cc: appsdir@ietf.org ; decade@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Apps review of DECADE drafts > > Dear DECADE WG Chairs, > > As I mentioned in a previous email, the Applications Area Directorate > has identified draft-ietf-decade-problem-statement-04 and > draft-ietf-decade-reqs-05 for review. Could you please tell me when > the revision of draft-ietf-decade-problem-statement-04 will be submitted? > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy > > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate > > _______________________________________________ > appsdir mailing list > appsdir@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/appsdir -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ From sm@elandsys.com Thu Jan 19 15:13:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DE4A21F86E0; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:13:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.619 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id awy5cVfW6dKZ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:13:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D1FA21F86D9; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:13:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.233.89]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0JND0re013692 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:13:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1327014793; i=@elandsys.com; bh=KZvWmlUNUfq2VjKjKR4ARH9SgCXRk8E3WUStIIs/XE4=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=Vstxo09HK7uamL2ySIXnvLyUR1jqk9N3kpCKNIp6jiwRkYQKirWSvW76d0Cb9mGRG fsKhOXaGSMerYMuWuc/GwOUkCYPdxJunOmtGiNDLxtsGDNwgQO/yl4xiirWcIpeJcQ JNHDI64EbhRcArvzCIByusxoLzcQH5kSTifo8vAo= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1327014793; i=@elandsys.com; bh=KZvWmlUNUfq2VjKjKR4ARH9SgCXRk8E3WUStIIs/XE4=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=P0x31u/tvL+1Lor/dm96eDZShYAhcUTdgwwn+6aJ7D27Fm7N4mYYKDGoAnunlmnZ0 YGBHdRriavFL/7wuQKz2sAuqTcnkVRH6VhehSjdtNk6Nn1kLHRyTi19DaENXvFg4c1 H7sl+OwajRgd2iIvWTJPfmy6ipUygbKHm4xu26bw= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120119145043.09d2f438@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:57:52 -0800 To: "Woundy, Richard" , haibin.song@huawei.com From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <1CA25301D2219F40B3AA37201F0EACD1150603A3@PACDCEXMB05.cable .comcast.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120119142440.0634f7a8@elandnews.com> <1CA25301D2219F40B3AA37201F0EACD1150603A3@PACDCEXMB05.cable.comcast.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: decade@ietf.org, appsdir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [appsdir] Apps review of DECADE drafts X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 23:13:18 -0000 Hi Rich, At 14:48 19-01-2012, Woundy, Richard wrote: >The document draft-ietf-decade-problem-statement-04 is held up due >to a much deeper review I undertook as document shepherd. I need to >communicate a lot of changes and questions back to the authors as a >result of this review. I don't think this document is ready for your >review at this time. Thanks for the quick reply. Will draft-ietf-decade-reqs-05 and the revision of draft-ietf-decade-problem-statement be sent for IETF Last Call simultaneously? Regards, S. Moonesamy From sm@elandsys.com Sat Jan 21 01:05:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1B0F21F855A for ; Sat, 21 Jan 2012 01:05:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.505 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.505 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.133, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Tu1N9F1jxX2B for ; Sat, 21 Jan 2012 01:05:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEA0021F8578 for ; Sat, 21 Jan 2012 01:05:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.235.213]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0L94oln027719 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 21 Jan 2012 01:05:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1327136703; i=@elandsys.com; bh=dyOrlxZcf3Tzicie2Ow3OOBQldmfRy+E0ikewmwf6bA=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=IFtKtei/fW0s2NhU5zBqWjZBuLFPJv4vmXHmNLfEV4iivldbOSVvWfQCcmNTXoDxE rnubYIHMDaBNBNRIsI70V384E/GMZvJDQ6eahRRACan2XJekp0eMWkAQpTKZ+G49bl KtaAil9DSnKsoPR4xdaPYt8WJdBpehowBAzMbHS0= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1327136703; i=@elandsys.com; bh=dyOrlxZcf3Tzicie2Ow3OOBQldmfRy+E0ikewmwf6bA=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=qgo2l9PGEY8KYcEvxkotfl5PkLgmKGjW8Q0eZN02s2W8TRNYPXt28IjeGb05oiA1A 1F7pQmdXZfNZ3aZrtgfP56Cw+EgH5hJexfpjeDH+QccKL+2+/p6pxb4ls8g4r6xmJ0 uYDEjJJhP0sElpJl3l0aPsUcFua8KdsPP9uqYKZ8= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120119140958.06421540@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 00:53:42 -0800 To: Dave CROCKER From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 01:25:38 -0800 Subject: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-decade-problem-statement-04 and draft-ietf-decade-reqs-05 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 09:05:20 -0000 Hi Dave, [Bcc to appsdir] Would you be able to review draft-ietf-decade-reqs-05? The review of draft-ietf-decade-problem-statement-04 will be assigned to the same reviewer. The DECADE WG chair mentioned that the statement draft requires significant change ( http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/appsdir/current/msg00750.html ). I'll set a deadline of a month for internal tracking. The administrative details at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/AppsDirReview The reviews may require significant follow-up effort. Please let me know if I can help in any way to make your work easier. Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Mon Jan 23 00:43:25 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20FB221F864C for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 00:43:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.616 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.616 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GeITp5GM-Av4 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 00:43:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7DE921F863F for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 00:43:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.233.82]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0N8h9jJ010415 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 23 Jan 2012 00:43:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1327308201; i=@elandsys.com; bh=eCG1W+rivZTY9z+kOMTOyfqbpT5WN0XNm0/rSUYMBig=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=OxP2KQpPez6GaqorGD64bYas8zSiqiahZsRH8QIg67hs1iIGTKWEfyZ2TKMRi9FRB m2DlM982nDbRhjVYvhZN2NC6XL46dog6e+WRYz5dcmKn0hK1WWMiQcv3BtGzkyxF8W 1hgr7ZJmKDTY5Unun+GKHUntGwAwDALtFFOrebfc= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1327308201; i=@elandsys.com; bh=eCG1W+rivZTY9z+kOMTOyfqbpT5WN0XNm0/rSUYMBig=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=tV7xpnZH8Veqr9MdyGsdqfpVdvsyM2zjfFW7vE9Z51wfXTTvy6+wgN5bhSHFZWbco DdYNgUKjjTv4U6GqMvaO23gtRJhpGvJQrE7+dZx+IeSWD/oRrHa1gPmfGUiBdSw+Us EsDb6cInTlpSNltVqYgXHm2Y0B1Ewagthu2TmDt4= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120122230555.09ad8320@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 00:07:04 -0800 To: Carsten Bormann From: SM In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [appsdir] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-decade-arch-04 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:43:25 -0000 Hi Carsten, At 17:43 22-01-2012, Carsten Bormann wrote: >Note: I decided to review this by reading the architecture document >only, to see whether it is able to stand alone. Note that this >implies that the review is likely incomplete. Given the cluster of >entangled documents this is a part of, I recommend a concerted review >of the next version(s). Thanks for the review. I'll follow up on your recommendation for the cluster of documents. >** Random observations: > >O1) >The proto writeup says: > > > The document was reviewed by DECADE WG members, the WG Chairs, and > > key non-WG contributors, particularly by David E Mcdysan, Borje > > Ohlman, Akbar Rahman, Ning Zong and Dirk Kutscher. > >Akbar Rahman and Dirk Kutscher are co-authors of this document, so I >sure hope they have reviewed this document. Nice catch. Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Tue Jan 24 15:29:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 135BA11E809A for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:29:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.595 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.595 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.004, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wQlUVSNi+EqO for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:29:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0449B11E8086 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:29:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.233.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0ONT3tw019721 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:29:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1327447756; i=@elandsys.com; bh=SF+yX3/awD7niqX8as5P/6UVGPgrLuIe9T0ABU2LT7c=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=qv4sTVoJQN845xwL3tKEVB8IBqao1VHS6e7Bo27ouNwBkWTeV42HzKmhI9UavWXSq rrRA4yLjl/IHIOUtMvLqwTj06BNwhJFpK5kZIm3qslVcQo/PnS98kdGpoHEVi0TwFP d8o6YR3JmTYNol8Go3T9JRGClys41ml74bG/oXaQ= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1327447756; i=@elandsys.com; bh=SF+yX3/awD7niqX8as5P/6UVGPgrLuIe9T0ABU2LT7c=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=1CknzRSJtiQR9EOKuxgnOJQZEQwmcT5xF5LQrO/4bWkPBPr9Ark3Jf5N+wu12GVg3 LFhM8PWhJS4XKe00bB4tmzNCTJ+7riI2EoLajqIwcOBkEnrH88OoY13d1m8626ITOx CUKB+gBwDDIphjW8gH89i2lIIYkDGy9cRT4Jm4Nw= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120124145339.0a2a0d80@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 14:57:09 -0800 To: "Henry S. Thompson" From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:33:32 -0800 Subject: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-oauth-v2-23 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:29:24 -0000 Hi Henry, [Bcc to Appsdir] Could you please review draft-ietf-oauth-v2-23 by February 6? The administrative details are at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/AppsDirReview Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Tue Jan 24 15:29:29 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA0F411E80A2 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:29:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.595 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.595 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.004, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ROb9Lt9VGICb for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:29:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DCFD11E809F for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:29:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.233.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0ONT3u0019721 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:29:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1327447761; i=@elandsys.com; bh=e9F9cAfLVwFXVX8XCvlHSfSzPOv0/M4V4Mzks4/Demg=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=BRpC77LLhhgMcvgi4QMUUHtoi+gUfRabfrFuK7VEUgFAkA5yKUH6BLO7VEDMBlarx +44vwSsT5k7OvnNlxyjz2VwF3OWTVQ2JLOPbvEnM3yRfGDhrbTn0pVVzTDq29FiHe/ aih6JK+wa+CV+feLUI9InfSxRA9WkOshaOAGgjYA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1327447761; i=@elandsys.com; bh=e9F9cAfLVwFXVX8XCvlHSfSzPOv0/M4V4Mzks4/Demg=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=NVnglVhlJ5V2Tw+C6/7gxDtexM/nR4gTAU6orQWHSc5XY6o36fOAP2PitZs4pYV8C Pn3zqJUiE/rdjcnzspKLc0RNFhzX8Llvo/ORFuLE0FIVWlsBHRT5mcvQ+zAaDUFv6f vxBKqHP1fuZ2H8PCQ0wqvzSTV7EEXjryK4ofVBUU= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120124145825.0a2a1010@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:00:16 -0800 To: Yves Lafon From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:33:32 -0800 Subject: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-snell-atompub-tombstones-14 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:29:30 -0000 Hi Yves, Could you please review draft-snell-atompub-tombstones-14 by February 6? The administrative details are at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/AppsDirReview Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Tue Jan 24 15:32:37 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58AD821F84FD for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:32:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.595 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.595 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.004, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QJKM3W3XSqdR for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:32:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2CC821F847B for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:32:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.233.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0ONT3u4019721 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:29:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1327447770; i=@elandsys.com; bh=whWysTXG1eLijDXVyVcZgKzeEJ0Xa8RnhDOW2VMkCLs=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=CP9t7mFIHQ6h1eZLzBskX7jOvF1+xFJ4U0f5Fp5GC5RhAenFSDsalu5p5C6TvyT82 f30C8mc6v6RU5pdUqRscpG2btD6Mvl9/XyY3stEg2CCmGJHZoqY35qVaNhKVOEZ65K 0bcP83ITSosDwEhfKAzcYQjziDD+0a+joKTy9DQw= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1327447770; i=@elandsys.com; bh=whWysTXG1eLijDXVyVcZgKzeEJ0Xa8RnhDOW2VMkCLs=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=LERScL3CGYSq+g5NlWYIxLVFzf2mxMI9kuRmpPXSGfcw+bVsY0FlvOkLVFrwV0+7l O/wjRsSg+RPBHjPlOdjHqgKxR5+LBpqHzndM9Dt2Sa+8eD4uOhMaXTdyDm8jWag0Dj Q++flYX7K7AAEPIuBY6B6qcqlMRnTvE1BgMt/xeM= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120124150905.093e9408@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:11:51 -0800 To: Julian Reschke From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:33:32 -0800 Subject: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-rmt-flute-revised-13 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:32:37 -0000 Hi Julian, [Bcc to appsdir] Could you please review draft-ietf-rmt-flute-revised-13 by February 6? The administrative details are at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/AppsDirReview A joint review experiment was suggested. ( http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/appsdir/current/msg00748.html ). As it is optional, I leave it to you to decide whether you would like to try it for this review. Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Tue Jan 24 15:32:37 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3D0521F8501 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:32:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.595 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.595 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.004, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SHtYjhMSWBjK for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:32:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1450E21F84DA for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:32:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.233.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0ONT3u8019721 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:29:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1327447779; i=@elandsys.com; bh=ew9lz+Lx9rk7XMfLXjrtNy1Z+qT5b1Em3qFsMu4p3DM=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=3zNJoi3sIEqUl4XsgBGq60inr2fSKpgh4kLkGOnByWwLQ1Wl+dJvrp20KkElzFQ0f n8PiWFko/K8FOK5hy1OJYII0OkZoQih72qIozdTwo0e4ZSXChhjHPawqDQzjYB4RTa QFnn+d56qYIhc0mWTCpfKa8ZzhWSOLWY/b3AW+yI= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1327447779; i=@elandsys.com; bh=ew9lz+Lx9rk7XMfLXjrtNy1Z+qT5b1Em3qFsMu4p3DM=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=WziPnIzOc/PKX4pMSFRe5GGGYw67pPqM70iLeeqKcmgo+N/6JGTgD/azd2c1GmYDL Q5VpfXeIoW6wcvgQt9QLOGPQOt4tdHnWpCVBilvItg47XAEoP3qOQoX6L6i9DVj7Bv gOMwPVifW3IZIchn2ETEztd2QC3IE7XnsJzThvzY= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120124151409.08f088c8@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:15:23 -0800 To: William Mills From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:33:32 -0800 Subject: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-dnsext-ecdsa-04 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:32:37 -0000 Hi William, [Bcc to appsdir] Could you please review draft-ietf-dnsext-ecdsa-04 by February 6? The administrative details are at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/AppsDirReview A joint review experiment was suggested. ( http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/appsdir/current/msg00748.html ). As it is optional, I leave it to you to decide whether you would like to try it for this review. Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Tue Jan 24 15:32:37 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BD0C21F847B for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:32:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.595 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.595 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.004, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oEy+KGudbbMD for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:32:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B715821F847A for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:32:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.233.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0ONT3u2019721 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:29:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1327447766; i=@elandsys.com; bh=vMlM+u/9T3F2QAJDvjcHMP+AAgRCd42skAjsv9rBP7k=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=wpSUvMGV18Z8fww9C7pv27c7z6k47tKGx9bMYG0AGAg3ekmWTe7RKbhNLI6pngJ0D FMQz+xFFFB9mDgsl8uz2JvU05z8f0eknIHmBHmShq91Cu4A3EluOVqP1V7RReiI0Oy DG+0nzjThipfHm+/CqNlwVDipnoP2AhQI7OoGUD0= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1327447766; i=@elandsys.com; bh=vMlM+u/9T3F2QAJDvjcHMP+AAgRCd42skAjsv9rBP7k=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=B/afSHLZzWLaDZ35ol5437Zh0BziQY2cYE6+HBCzJiwPuNauL1i3qZBjIS2IGCay+ 1CDdFnglZmpvZVM1GPOEZ3JrqhbOkWqAipQDIXE5HciruaNuqJFckG6XgJPu1WQXJB yeWyqJCdgYZhj7e6jnqOrmNec672K6kNiHN5hkWo= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120124150128.093e9698@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:08:54 -0800 To: Enrico Marocco From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:33:32 -0800 Subject: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-simple-chat-13 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:32:37 -0000 Hi Enrico, [Bcc to appsdir] Could you please review draft-ietf-simple-chat-13 by February 6? The administrative details are at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/AppsDirReview A joint review experiment was suggested. ( http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/appsdir/current/msg00748.html ). As it is optional, I leave it to you to decide whether you would like to try it for this review. Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Tue Jan 24 15:32:37 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3DB521F847A for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:32:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.595 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.595 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.004, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nOsrRBkPXZTV for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:32:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC13921F84C8 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:32:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.233.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0ONT3u6019721 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:29:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1327447775; i=@elandsys.com; bh=qr4aRT2ktnQEZa8i6z+ml8Bb8BbFWYiCYV99v/KvoPU=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=XpSsLt3kmVriN+lX7ITHbvyapNZp5LKLGfqucvSdtCKBIljNDqiVfPU+jv17auYmu 9lVyizoGb74130GGo2lRHLZ1ZaY0Z9Mx4dwYMzilCMR7xXkksDFuRceUDp3CkT0qP2 +L1z6mXg1YjwP0+/I4JeTjypkvUC26dVTCzGP2kA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1327447775; i=@elandsys.com; bh=qr4aRT2ktnQEZa8i6z+ml8Bb8BbFWYiCYV99v/KvoPU=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=2NLuNQQJYBM7fcqfkOg7goJ98DYXxJeowCez0OZUna2ZSLWiMIl1EYSoUrQ5pvMQk RyIt3Ni9+WGqsrXXu/YY1UasM6FmGMvqF1P14UQlWwN5LKi0d4q7LZblHEbsOUFYMf n1PSVSUuXmTT6lq83CNWgHMItaweKB5XInagDl4M= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120124151154.093e9928@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:14:06 -0800 To: Tobias Gondrom From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:33:32 -0800 Subject: [appsdir] request for review: draft-ietf-tsvwg-source-quench-04 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:32:37 -0000 Hi Tobias, [Bcc to appsdir] Could you please review draft-ietf-tsvwg-source-quench-04 by February 6? The administrative details are at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/AppsDirReview A joint review experiment was suggested. ( http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/appsdir/current/msg00748.html ). As it is optional, I leave it to you to decide whether you would like to try it for this review. Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Tue Jan 24 15:32:38 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3645D21F847A for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:32:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.596 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.003, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KwIefRvYwyoi for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:32:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4871121F84FC for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:32:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.233.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0ONT3uE019721 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:29:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1327447793; i=@elandsys.com; bh=syTfTmwtnWTzxNDK63nduJqAr9H9JB/aP4Xh1lGxNuo=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=SA+XVHWHfuelV9ExKsvhVeVV1kgeLz8SMbXldiCHKDKiIuWjMeuxMQDiXbErLWihq 6SMjLD47O0Y8by3HofKCZUDYvU8hxeKuIVzcR8SZjtd7eQltj2cS5D0aLSGs0VrKeD Txu+Wr7tEukHzZavmHXD00quioc//7dhQez8raSU= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1327447793; i=@elandsys.com; bh=syTfTmwtnWTzxNDK63nduJqAr9H9JB/aP4Xh1lGxNuo=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=EiDBFgrUmN9099GAkUT+obkHrC0JP8siCkiLVaZH7aVBrHj/KBfvFQmgI3ta5sLTI HaYm/r94JzfenS6uOt3KECF9Mq3QQS6bomAiYcM55K1BQwzNrBsidnyTk8/6Ny/rHy P41ZKPAoBFBQat4J5MgOLSkdRa331k5JBCqgTchc= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120124152249.093f7588@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:25:36 -0800 To: Yoshiro YONEYA From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:33:32 -0800 Subject: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-harkins-ipsecme-spsk-auth-06 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:32:38 -0000 Hi Yoshiro, [Bcc to appsdir] Could you please review draft-harkins-ipsecme-spsk-auth-06 by February 6? The administrative details are at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/AppsDirReview A joint review experiment was suggested. ( http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/appsdir/current/msg00748.html ). As it is optional, I leave it to you to decide whether you would like to try it for this review. Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Tue Jan 24 15:32:38 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 461D121F847B for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:32:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.596 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.003, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OpIqYRK522Nz for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:32:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E67E21F84EA for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:32:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.233.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0ONT3uA019721 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:29:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1327447785; i=@elandsys.com; bh=xV1hbwZOPegrg4FirFz0V6yX/5C3JBXhxtJil2MxvK8=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=pdgmaE9+GKr/KaWL7Z7YKhoiqiMssikX/LrFhoIGWBnRQGhct6xbKIY3GGJSEqq0N Y1/ow5FkPCf31xfYpTgRuB3m3cy4IhPrv5dulPUTFNEZQ0OsIRCiEMvXaS5u+zeXA3 yZJS49TA6Ss8XhBpU3sfNY5g1iy7rGsevOeDKJWo= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1327447785; i=@elandsys.com; bh=xV1hbwZOPegrg4FirFz0V6yX/5C3JBXhxtJil2MxvK8=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=iC2/+7vQ2XjG3Qx2nholmcYmbMKF8IldMbCT+kQQbU7F5i4AGGpjnITbD/GZlMJt6 QJymScST90atErMZJwhRLqCzBeFJ9CsMwMgLBw3nRSp+HkYTnLeSjghvsaSBBe54vv yk6T/+ZTBqXQ2cyDCbjCG9gEm/th/Wwgo14K2GHA= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120124151538.08f08638@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:16:52 -0800 To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:33:32 -0800 Subject: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-pcp-base-22 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:32:38 -0000 Hi Vijay, [Bcc to appsdir] Could you please review draft-ietf-pcp-base-22 by February 6? The administrative details are at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/AppsDirReview A joint review experiment was suggested. ( http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/appsdir/current/msg00748.html ). As it is optional, I leave it to you to decide whether you would like to try it for this review. Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Tue Jan 24 15:32:38 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5827321F84C8 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:32:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.596 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.003, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F4quibJz9Gqw for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:32:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6806721F84FF for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:32:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.233.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0ONT3uG019721 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:29:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1327447797; i=@elandsys.com; bh=fo8jFCnVWFk+UGU9LYYgePp2lka4x9GvaOV4R8Nvt9Y=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=hOPfUfn8K+jXIagcfHNyXWBDurktCynE8b+qSxdn2lP7zHpsPZvC12QESdGQ5Ztu+ kYZhlgFtrO112ZilfAZVIJYJ7FwQ2dbKfksOKxBp3r12P/bO8fB5QG5L/MzidOp301 dDk/OmCbImh4vXbmUpJvfFBeUQ3o1GdHwjDSfNJc= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1327447797; i=@elandsys.com; bh=fo8jFCnVWFk+UGU9LYYgePp2lka4x9GvaOV4R8Nvt9Y=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=FehcL1HLi1qp9hprYp2V2b8YpfctTXKTJbfN3HQVuVJ0Q2IdC1Og8lzrQohaFqNzk ebu3pwU4P7NBasmpzZH2aQOYsMlAo/aKufdpW0drGp/jygKoyl8P4g6SHiiEDp2s/s XJBlS7cEXhuM518+noGuoA81n2djW0jiY+fd2oUY= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120124152539.093f72f8@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:28:04 -0800 To: Aaron Stone From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:33:32 -0800 Subject: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-klv-02 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:32:38 -0000 Hi Aaron, [Bcc to appsdir] Could you please review draft-ietf-payload-rtp-klv-02 by February 6? The administrative details are at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/AppsDirReview A joint review experiment was suggested. ( http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/appsdir/current/msg00748.html ). As it is optional, I leave it to you to decide whether you would like to try it for this review. Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Tue Jan 24 16:01:45 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D1F011E809D for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:01:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.596 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.003, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d7MLj-gaFxAa for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:01:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D660D11E80AD for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:01:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.233.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0P01PtH028923 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:01:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1327449699; i=@elandsys.com; bh=suYKErbi4GXnhM9WwM24jFrdXWpgGvemvSGhi8v+OV0=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=yF7k/Y4kChzXubByLIXhwZ62Hy4xL/j2DLWLISV4XD6qGUZ43q6L0rt6e4DhrLvLD E0IMCQ3iE1KanU8iqUF7L5hD+ud3j5Yv1dnweKe6R1l4HaRQIvAbK8CYn9Zcmefg9t +t+LNXRpiDUA0ejfyux+H+GU4QSDgK0kUDQuV+ms= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1327449699; i=@elandsys.com; bh=suYKErbi4GXnhM9WwM24jFrdXWpgGvemvSGhi8v+OV0=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=H48zPIIfGlevwW8mwdC7qrgFxuppnG7eXWgIN5LwvPYdiIX8iiZPym4BSPC+RV434 EjZFYeIvvljJ7qUQHkQmzmmf88E+sUto2ZI7uLMR75QBJkfYTn7gPQsBd5brDXAY+T n7Ta1eRDJdira/FkHUgrpcuB9KEaaNw55o9CuRvs= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120124155851.08f08ca0@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:01:17 -0800 To: Lisa Dusseault From: SM In-Reply-To: <4F1F401E.5000108@cisco.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120124151655.08f08ca0@elandnews.com> <4F1F401E.5000108@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:02:13 -0800 Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-24 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:01:45 -0000 Hi Lisa, [Bcc to appsdir] Could you please review draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-24 by February 1 (IESG telechat the next day)? The administrative details are at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/AppsDirReview I initially assigned the review to Eliot but he's busy. Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Tue Jan 31 18:20:10 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80F2521F8504 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:20:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4qTIq60EzA-B for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:20:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EE7E21F84D2 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:20:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from sm-THINK.elandsys.com (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q112Jw1v020278 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:20:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1328062802; i=@elandsys.com; bh=DtNOSeAxOtWJWhO7HsPhupHKLVS3PH5ldbCJLZsF/7k=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=bWxvMi5edJQJTFddH+Gz4fzgmytKkQPxPntBsREcD8CRSk/kmH5qoPo8ic6kG3vps /RGFc06eLK2uz/TEpLOVBxyqKQZFtAvwnMfVcEhVa1q7gnIGS9pm/7l9liLcsetGkt mtMq44XKe82HyQVo5h5eelhEQPtp6T+7rhG/ycy8= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1328062802; i=@elandsys.com; bh=DtNOSeAxOtWJWhO7HsPhupHKLVS3PH5ldbCJLZsF/7k=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=iOGcr11kNUbJZy0CMgXjHnv9mr9ZRhN7IqhUJWE2p1pfgwtdnHoFF4TgyJDAhxX5D atj+bx90BtB396Hz5RPGBO2wjYxcnj++NHbf515YlRztmZDf9CKsyFcpz6mXZ7WQQ0 pNdPNABkkCvYHz2Nw758vGMIGCV9zeU6X++m+IUY= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120131181309.0a90be48@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:19:50 -0800 To: Barry Leiba From: SM In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120124152249.093f7588@elandnews.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120124152249.093f7588@elandnews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: appsdir@ietf.org, Yoshiro YONEYA Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-harkins-ipsecme-spsk-auth-06 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 02:20:10 -0000 Hi Barry, Would you be able to do the review draft-harkins-ipsecme-spsk-auth-06 by February 13? I have not received any answer from Yoshiro regarding the assignment. Best regards, -sm From barryleiba@gmail.com Tue Jan 31 18:22:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8102021F846C for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:22:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.945 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.945 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.032, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mwiPix9WLzms for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:22:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-tul01m020-f172.google.com (mail-tul01m020-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E498B21F8467 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:22:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by obbwd15 with SMTP id wd15so798703obb.31 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:22:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=7sDh2yJw9/9Q5kUPCmHNN6TAVGh9TXc7ejTo1ye4kCg=; b=o8qqmk6MQfZ+8KwIG2p5e/VkzNCBk9wKNOu0d3ceMxsAoC9KdLl/Mdp68c5Hulb6AA wEcEFD33CYi1alF5+ddtVdUyDOGb84VowfgcFEoMEOVPW8WXECi7IfkF+eIcQKxew+y0 Qfz6MV/0U3H1xnXJBfqp2Hs13+Tvvrl7NEoY8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.7.42 with SMTP id g10mr37609516oba.7.1328062938257; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:22:18 -0800 (PST) Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.60.9.65 with HTTP; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:22:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120131181309.0a90be48@elandnews.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120124152249.093f7588@elandnews.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120131181309.0a90be48@elandnews.com> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:22:18 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: keduRFn0AiutuOSr8rilsly4MgY Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: SM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-harkins-ipsecme-spsk-auth-06 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 02:22:19 -0000 > Would you be able to do the review draft-harkins-ipsecme-spsk-auth-06 by > February 13? =A0I have not received any answer from Yoshiro regarding the > assignment. I'm getting plugged into my new AD position, and spending time getting things settled and ramping up for that. It's probably best to put me on AppsDir hiatus starting now, as incoming AD. Barry From stpeter@stpeter.im Tue Jan 31 18:23:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC4FC21F846E for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:23:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.657 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.657 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.058, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h7FAGF2MnobZ for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:23:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FE5321F846C for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:23:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from leavealone.cisco.com (unknown [72.163.0.129]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 31F3B40058; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:33:13 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <4F28A20A.1020804@stpeter.im> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:23:06 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Barry Leiba References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120124152249.093f7588@elandnews.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120131181309.0a90be48@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: appsdir@ietf.org, SM Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-harkins-ipsecme-spsk-auth-06 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 02:23:08 -0000 On 1/31/12 7:22 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: >> Would you be able to do the review draft-harkins-ipsecme-spsk-auth-06 by >> February 13? I have not received any answer from Yoshiro regarding the >> assignment. > > I'm getting plugged into my new AD position, and spending time getting > things settled and ramping up for that. It's probably best to put me > on AppsDir hiatus starting now, as incoming AD. Welcome to my world. :) Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ From sm@elandsys.com Tue Jan 31 18:30:32 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2CCF11E809B for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:30:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zxVlbwEOaLW0 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:30:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1050311E808E for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:30:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from sm-THINK.elandsys.com (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q112UOx6017627 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:30:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1328063426; i=@elandsys.com; bh=z8XJpoEyMfstNJMrGWWOKMxqHtkJpAQYGzynDL8ELLU=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=kjzWhAOXgCFwTJVnfGMnjUxYNv9HJJNtnqWNIa3Ta/GDd4bBaQxGA88sc6Rd5uioB GghYXp44iZ6TLawEYv1Zfx4/vIYroPj4u4A/pn13NK/dllhYqRckLk829mnOUvjD7F +mBpeU8NZCq1Ftnyry4plRc0K+FxAz2gusaDQFsg= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1328063426; i=@elandsys.com; bh=z8XJpoEyMfstNJMrGWWOKMxqHtkJpAQYGzynDL8ELLU=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=Oo/Qn2CDNhNDqlIrZAvhiXceigP0vev/kbIoNgg58roBhRCvDzUgWjU5T1jvq4fK3 eu0+YAF6Nkj53EqWSjYHxcwn5Vv5hBKUUIrvC4jrW+2ESYK7+YGcjTu5D7nFNgVuXo qwrwMDw2SBP9fL9R3dDQjzawT/IrfmswhLKnbXv4= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120131182655.0acc8720@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:30:06 -0800 To: Barry Leiba From: SM In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120124152249.093f7588@elandnews.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120131181309.0a90be48@elandnews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-harkins-ipsecme-spsk-auth-06 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 02:30:32 -0000 Hi Barry, At 06:22 PM 1/31/2012, Barry Leiba wrote: >I'm getting plugged into my new AD position, and spending time getting >things settled and ramping up for that. It's probably best to put me >on AppsDir hiatus starting now, as incoming AD. I thought so. I'll put you on AppsDir leave. Can someone please volunteer for this? Best regards, -sm From yoshiro.yoneya@jprs.co.jp Tue Jan 31 19:59:13 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: appsdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2A8F11E809D for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:59:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VOC+a1dPg9tq for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:59:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from off-send01.tyo.jprs.co.jp (off-send01.tyo.jprs.co.jp [IPv6:2001:df0:8:17::10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 278C011E8096 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:59:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from off-sendsmg01.tyo.jprs.co.jp (off-sendsmg01.tyo.jprs.co.jp [172.18.8.32]) by off-send01.tyo.jprs.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q113wpnD023729; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 12:58:52 +0900 X-AuditID: ac120820-b7f2a6d0000076cf-85-4f28b87b06d9 Received: from NOTE550 (off-cpu04.tyo.jprs.co.jp [172.18.4.14]) by off-sendsmg01.tyo.jprs.co.jp (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 7D.7B.30415.B78B82F4; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 12:58:51 +0900 (JST) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 12:58:50 +0900 From: Yoshiro YONEYA To: SM Message-Id: <20120201125850.28cabc2a.yoshiro.yoneya@jprs.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120131182655.0acc8720@elandnews.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120124152249.093f7588@elandnews.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120131181309.0a90be48@elandnews.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120131182655.0acc8720@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.1.2 (GTK+ 2.10.14; i686-pc-mingw32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrCIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsWyRoiFT7d6h4a/wbKJRhZTp+5jtTi0+BKr xav+m6wWXW2bWRxYPFpW9TJ73HvzkcljyZKfTB5/779jDWCJ4rJJSc3JLEst0rdL4Mp4cWMb S0E/W8Wfh1PZGxifsXQxcnJICJhIbJq0kRnCFpO4cG89WxcjF4eQwHFGiblXn7CBJFgEVCSu X54BVsQmYCDxa9lvJhBbREBWYvLVF6wgNrOAtcSGg+vB6oUF/CU2vv0EFucVsJe48rcLLM4p YCcxc+UXJogFbxgl2o+/Y+9i5ADabCGxdZ0liMkrICjxd4cwxEgtiYe/brFA2PIS29/OYZ7A yD8LoWoWkqpZSKoWMDKvYpTJT0vTLU7NSynOTTcw1CupzNfLKigq1ksG0ZsYwQHLobCDccYp g0OMAhyMSjy8Cjoa/kKsiWXFlbmHGCU5mJREecu3A4X4kvJTKjMSizPii0pzUosPMUpwMCuJ 8G5uAMrxpiRWVqUW5cOkpDlYlMR5j5/d4SckkJ5YkpqdmlqQWgSTleHgUJLg3QkyVLAoNT21 Ii0zpwQhzcTBCTKcB2h48VaQ4cUFibnFmekQ+VOMqhzXGvefZxRiycvPS5US510EMkgApCij NA9uzitGcaB3hHnTQbI8wKQEN+EV0HAmoOHPGVRBhpckIqSkGhhFFk5s/L7e+DH3ocP+q04f cth4ns3gQpQK9zc9h20THfs2BU0reRtcpVG1fFPtno9rWd51rKlZ+9u/+YVAxs500fYJAupM rddUvbp+ui6TDV3x8vuHVdwmR31ffX5jv+7dJLbLmcy3jz/vCk7XEV8gt717c3H3ZKtjIkua QnuvrmznUZvZOf++EktxRqKhFnNRcSIAv9nSzAcDAAA= Cc: Barry Leiba , appsdir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-harkins-ipsecme-spsk-auth-06 X-BeenThere: appsdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Apps Area Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 03:59:13 -0000 Dear SM and all, Sorry for my delayed response to this, but I'll review the document by Feb 6. Regards, -- Yoshiro YONEYA On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:30:06 -0800 SM wrote: > Hi Barry, > At 06:22 PM 1/31/2012, Barry Leiba wrote: > >I'm getting plugged into my new AD position, and spending time getting > >things settled and ramping up for that. It's probably best to put me > >on AppsDir hiatus starting now, as incoming AD. > > I thought so. I'll put you on AppsDir leave. > > Can someone please volunteer for this? > > Best regards, > -sm > > _______________________________________________ > appsdir mailing list > appsdir@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/appsdir > >