From sm@elandsys.com Wed May 2 00:42:51 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 08F8321F8A38 for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 00:42:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.571 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.571 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 tGZj+oJOxOAo for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 00:42:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6D4421F88B8 for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 00:42:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.171]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q427gY5G025236 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 2 May 2012 00:42:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1335944567; i=@elandsys.com; bh=e4ALmAPAEUbj7TziWViXz3ekTzpQwiC4RrIKSzo0pus=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=mV/qB36R3XW5ImBEaNgs3T011to5YmKUdFfGvhBM215aoolR6Rw1uUI1Xc/dMHs62 pdDfSMExLw5XnPsufejYjiTABbS5O0+gWuyBkfop7D1evx0TYZwBx6K47dTlAvg3k/ wKWBVVwxZEEuLTczKQciep/5JygT0JZhwK5IKeYI= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1335944567; i=@elandsys.com; bh=e4ALmAPAEUbj7TziWViXz3ekTzpQwiC4RrIKSzo0pus=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=JjJt2Iwt6kEVXUAOgTxSXzWVUyzyUNKOUhSS+oUqQU66Bei9QNcfLkNZOq19XtqJi seMUkBOG13IT9L3U8TCsOyC9rbpr7Q9fpE7YuPI0Olhu8+VXWL0NSqvwTy0gmWCeG4 6BAq3FY6T2OQ5L+F1vy6YZWh89sNmGBzESUX+IM0= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120501234650.093612a0@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 23:49:16 -0700 To: William Mills From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 02 May 2012 00:51:43 -0700 Subject: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-abfab-gss-eap 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, 02 May 2012 07:42:51 -0000 Hi William, [Bcc to appsdir@] Could you please review draft-ietf-abfab-gss-eap by May 14? The administrative details are at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/AppsDirReview Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Wed May 2 00:42:58 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 892CA21F8A3C for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 00:42:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.571 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.571 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 ayXD+ZG12ykb for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 00:42:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4E4921F8A3B for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 00:42:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.171]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q427gY5I025236 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 2 May 2012 00:42:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1335944571; i=@elandsys.com; bh=jmR42Il4Otqe1qYDg/kNg+RQ4emEB5dpZbjxSYYNPjM=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=o02zijHgdxAIrt1Z/azqLTe6kN3p8BpHM1h0N5HnS4qvjbOTWVx6s4Yxr2vZLRnuK EtJ3jYTA4pBcPxoYGMhRJfixy5yNyWt6PvcWVNIObOYPReL7OYXo+A7UOIeocfkyxW nJjCXSE7C/HDCtCrtyADEX4lEbEDwQvHaakhV/pw= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1335944571; i=@elandsys.com; bh=jmR42Il4Otqe1qYDg/kNg+RQ4emEB5dpZbjxSYYNPjM=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=NAaphFIbeXqyssjrp3ndosJ+RRsK+A2aW679Wmge1RMK9xEBsW+ydlT5xlGZEpUg1 E24eDu8czDPL+yVPzl4EdpZh56hYDbRdWOe/ancow1TcfuuzffyH5eJK8VW8LJoUEk 8HX//ikbJBnYPhNbAqTBQZwAmR6KqjpkL3znnKKY= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120501234924.09361e28@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 23:50:51 -0700 To: Salvatore Loreto From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 02 May 2012 00:51:43 -0700 Subject: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-appsawg-http-forwarded-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, 02 May 2012 07:42:58 -0000 Hi Sal, [Bcc to appsdir@] Could you please review draft-ietf-appsawg-http-forwarded-02 by May 14? The administrative details are at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/AppsDirReview Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Wed May 2 00:44:13 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 EEDB011E807F for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 00:44:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.571 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.571 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 aGWIZqTIfaaI for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 00:44:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9927411E8074 for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 00:44:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.171]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q427gY5Y025236 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 2 May 2012 00:43:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1335944605; i=@elandsys.com; bh=kXkVvntsv6sRdDYo7bqQh2C8qXEBXZzw2/azsHb86J0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=dJ52e3fzmb8cHrs1bFcUhpbBehFYkM02PrVCddWs5LJNmkI6M19uN9CpLoxKSx7Te ie/+zwA7Bf18iv5o3Z3Bdi3x21HQtWk0U2ud280uY5htNL/hjBRMFp1eMk4rQy44P8 XiIGbcCgbbyR1L2OQDssethVrcmWmq0S06tVyaII= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1335944605; i=@elandsys.com; bh=kXkVvntsv6sRdDYo7bqQh2C8qXEBXZzw2/azsHb86J0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=tg1M8GibpFaACHuXBD9QVPScjg2OMJX9OBmEdbpgIoh1B508xmxTKMtbodFibdnme 6ifhAkEH7ZmFOlgR6gldMHUBKfw1k6hYRAwQRHybNfEQAFlNKRy2UgjWSDRqdtjmjj OSztlTgN+wBPlQvSMxfekElKGbqVncquZt6lvo+M= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120502002205.098a8038@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 00:24:33 -0700 To: Claudio Allocchio From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 02 May 2012 00:51:43 -0700 Subject: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-codec-opus-12 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, 02 May 2012 07:44:14 -0000 Hi Claudio, [Bcc to appsdir@] Could you please review draft-ietf-codec-opus-12 by May 14? BTW, I understand that this is a difficult document to review. The administrative details are at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/AppsDirReview Best regards, -sm From claudio.allocchio@garr.it Wed May 2 00:56:53 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 C23D821F87AB for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 00:56:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, 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 C+J2NwnGsREn for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 00:56:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cyrus.dir.garr.it (cyrus.dir.garr.it [IPv6:2001:760:0:158::29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8A0E21F86EB for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 00:56:52 -0700 (PDT) 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 q427upXW022473 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 09:56:51 +0200 (CEST) X-Return-Path: X-Received: from cyrus.dir.garr.it ([unix socket]) by cyrus.dir.garr.it (Cyrus v2.3.16) with LMTPA; Wed, 02 May 2012 09:55:16 +0200 X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.3 X-Received: from lx1.dir.garr.it (lx1.dir.garr.it [IPv6:2001:760:0:158::2]) by cyrus.dir.garr.it (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q427tGNO022432 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 09:55:16 +0200 (CEST) X-Received: from cyrus.dir.garr.it (cyrus.dir.garr.it [IPv6:2001:760:0:158::29]) by lx1.dir.garr.it (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id q427sj98018856 X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.6.0 lx1.dir.garr.it q427sj98018856 Authentication-Results: lx1.dir.garr.it; domainkeys=neutral header.from=Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it X-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 q427sTb3022380 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 2 May 2012 09:54:29 +0200 (CEST) X-DomainKeys: Sendmail DomainKeys Filter v1.0.2 cyrus.dir.garr.it q427sTb3022380 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=garr.it; c=simple; q=dns; b=HxCEMaAd0C9wkTCg+U/BA2AqcY/GbJz/u8Cb/lcnBYbmmNX+0k/6srSWVUMDPLtdV kEHDa7lxp7Z0zIYCGmWLZzXBZT4Iw3lV98UDM89H/QXs4dvvI5Bm7HcVMK2HQYZX/dp 365X/wxiOGSMFiGw7v9EWqQQcpTHHVIz+SbI92U= Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 09:54:29 +0200 (CEST) From: Claudio Allocchio X-X-Sender: claudio@mac-allocchio3.elettra.trieste.it To: SM In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120502002205.098a8038@elandnews.com> Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120502002205.098a8038@elandnews.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (OSX 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender e-mail whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.3.7 (lx1.dir.garr.it [IPv6:2001:760:0:158::2]); Wed, 02 May 2012 09:55:15 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97.3 at lx1.dir.garr.it X-Virus-Status: Clean ReSent-Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 09:56:22 +0200 (CEST) ReSent-From: Claudio Allocchio ReSent-To: appsdir@ietf.org ReSent-Subject: Re: Request for review: draft-ietf-codec-opus-12 ReSent-Message-ID: ReSent-User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (OSX 1266 2009-07-14) Cc: Claudio Allocchio Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-codec-opus-12 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, 02 May 2012 07:56:53 -0000 On Wed, 2 May 2012, SM wrote: > Hi Claudio, > > [Bcc to appsdir@] > > Could you please review draft-ietf-codec-opus-12 by May 14? BTW, I > understand that this is a difficult document to review. let me have a look at it first! I need to see if I feel I know enough to do that. I'm not an audio engineer, and that's a very detailed technical specification. (I do know at least a couple of audio engineers which could give a detailed review... but none of the ever interacted with the IETF processes and works). I'll be back soon! > > The administrative details are at > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/AppsDirReview > > Best regards, > -sm > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Wed May 2 01:00:02 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 7221621F883F for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 01:00:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.572 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.572 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 CyWovHAZVaJu for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 01:00:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC40621F8838 for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 01:00:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.171]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q427gY5M025236 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 2 May 2012 00:42:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1335944580; i=@elandsys.com; bh=3d/hxs+n9Af3WGLUC3z9ATwRFAQCks7A7LxW7iBoyI4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=NbCh4m+gqcnDiUYg56qA6kjk3pQb0epXgMV19Dmx8fTYoc0bncgCZ3cNMpFBK13as oTR90mvbPjZMyBqEJsngMb2XTHFVTzmcQ+uVDn+0n8e4ydB9KIabr6mkoflL+MhG74 jPamiavJbCLhkZIz8zGFA68wz8unAfZAcGX5Sxno= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1335944580; i=@elandsys.com; bh=3d/hxs+n9Af3WGLUC3z9ATwRFAQCks7A7LxW7iBoyI4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=Lp+7+lGC6NhSRfyxgrWBHY7zAyW2JA6CXLbLI6KX5cXyNik3cC0dUKWTW3Kh/z5XN XPSSSB+2qDC1pC1mhWOCins5ejwJ1WNmyBGRC6TgI7uQxhtQ+vWbJCcdJnOZdFIZSK e5dilcoD9wvCcz4Wqx+tou7GFJrhDesD7VmlM+bA= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120501235700.0936c0e0@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 23:58:50 -0700 To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 02 May 2012 01:01:15 -0700 Subject: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03 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, 02 May 2012 08:00:02 -0000 Hi Murray, [Bcc to appsdir@] Could you please review draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03 by May 14? The administrative details are at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/AppsDirReview Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Wed May 2 01:00:02 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 787DC21F8842 for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 01:00:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.572 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.572 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 7uuiTHR2ToFi for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 01:00:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 778B921F8828 for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 01:00:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.171]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q427gY5K025236 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 2 May 2012 00:42:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1335944575; i=@elandsys.com; bh=7V2/Gn66aA8PuWP+ZRp1MvMrjwqBcUzeVRkIZtFL34M=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=IGuFZfeI63QOBh8RANNmDxcZyq7rOxYU6qRnxRbzQdQfCM1pI5Xgwmkwxc9qWvn85 +LNSZ6kvBh4LgOREsxzszW2NNZwHpNlpSD6Fy27gE9fLSCWv/dh+M7GL6KM6MCveoC 3KabF4wFHShbH0YZn/qLsK8ZIbLnw9+GLw7jX9KM= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1335944575; i=@elandsys.com; bh=7V2/Gn66aA8PuWP+ZRp1MvMrjwqBcUzeVRkIZtFL34M=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=fxuu2p8uze2q0CLXCVyLbAcu7kbyG6a9bOjihpFgZXgUapA3+ZlUXr3UtcBC1k0Kp Ur8vR92AjXuUNx7NGushKPrkLPll6F5TRV/NEFW/HUBK4WlE+smSSkOHLnU1MEwxF0 mK4RbyA2l4ukjPNQastrmJw2kxQ5Od7GPcsWA494= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120501235326.093684a8@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 23:55:22 -0700 To: Larry Masinter From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 02 May 2012 01:01:15 -0700 Subject: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-appsawg-mime-default-charset-03 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, 02 May 2012 08:00:02 -0000 Hi Larry, [Bcc to appsdir@] Could you please review draft-ietf-appsawg-mime-default-charset-03 by May 7? The administrative details are at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/AppsDirReview Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Wed May 2 01:00:02 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 90E4721F8838 for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 01:00:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.573 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.573 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 z0gTRNW29Whr for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 01:00:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E30DD21F883B for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 01:00:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.171]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q427gY5S025236 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 2 May 2012 00:43:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1335944591; i=@elandsys.com; bh=cuhRXJ9tSrcgsqfizv5l5Ii+1BtjWAdcc4EqyRbkEyI=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=uQBCN4Vo3cjxGNnrPv1KGSDc/CvnuSrC4nCr0xIobP8tqu2DH7g1sqHyJlZROTT+t XHUw6cYGBMR0k3eNHiU9W0bteZZ+bsXlODMsmYRXTZ/xT/wBiIQQGPsSzXSMb5fIp7 1nES230TEDHvMjcVbrNoTfbqvoS5w1UDmNhzRhfU= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1335944591; i=@elandsys.com; bh=cuhRXJ9tSrcgsqfizv5l5Ii+1BtjWAdcc4EqyRbkEyI=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=b0f2sdlDfxFliYhkKQVWb8mxQFfWkD6MY77OdBaUXrER2ZC3CXceWmc9vyqknhT2T V8BENpcKndY+jH/rwHLXdhY5NjJoPup16jTHE1v6mfYmYVYZbSzepyfTarpQY1quMN PUrU68ILEGL3tNvbXF6D9bV63POoIml9SedfAaq0= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120502001134.098820e8@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 00:13:11 -0700 To: Carsten Bormann From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 02 May 2012 01:01:15 -0700 Subject: [appsdir] request for review: draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format-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: Wed, 02 May 2012 08:00:02 -0000 Hi Carsten [Bcc appsdir@] Could you please review draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format-01 by May 7? The administrative details are at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/AppsDirReview Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Wed May 2 01:00:03 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 24F0421F883F for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 01:00:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.574 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.574 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 gFgfwlWMMGSD for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 01:00:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40AD121F883C for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 01:00:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.171]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q427gY5a025236 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 2 May 2012 00:43:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1335944609; i=@elandsys.com; bh=qiLnVINWDVAgbZ1f3dklOkWb/ThHLGSUEvPd60fGE8E=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=UPWIUxgz2W1UrVP1VhKkMlVxzqxOOE5h3JKkhQerO9+EtM+gmtPjIj5yScFTrQRiG dUJdcFUFOOHqm3LCGXNpJFf8A+wpJix9On6iE+3Y/IAREiXAKg/vDxL3CITx1y+NAy cvGyCvUCoc1G3JV0KG0bN2OTgi1kLFKLsZ73LgIA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1335944609; i=@elandsys.com; bh=qiLnVINWDVAgbZ1f3dklOkWb/ThHLGSUEvPd60fGE8E=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=iLa8HDte/Gyplnkg1BN7Cp3vBSyd4QjZgTeA2k/yYf8NteOQe7NtobPGX78ETwNh6 eyK9rmzK5y69E10fD+3GR+4mAeRyvLESdQKeoIHdwwnwgGaMAQNp2V5oUboAWsTGF2 457xZnVkRPwcDgr88fP0htuFr2TwuMEHwgiuY5nQ= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120502002557.09882b28@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 00:28:23 -0700 To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 02 May 2012 01:01:15 -0700 Subject: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-ledbat-congestion-09 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, 02 May 2012 08:00:03 -0000 Hi Vijay, [Bcc to appsdir@] Could you please review draft-ietf-ledbat-congestion-09 by May 14? The administrative details are at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/AppsDirReview Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Wed May 2 01:00:03 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 18A7521F883B for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 01:00:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.573 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.573 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 96MTwnY4KehS for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 01:00:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26DB021F8799 for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 01:00:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.171]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q427gY5W025236 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 2 May 2012 00:43:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1335944601; i=@elandsys.com; bh=QTIxbJu1G0O+y7wlyveAPaTinGjMua5xsgjNbohI0P0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=qpwpQOzxlf2ZogpZsmmJCHJ7roDUwCIQ347+Sqeq0lTDxTIk4RP6jIq5pGfY3eYzY yougrSrxgR5gkKT3Ed5EhPgpLSvm4fo1RpPCmLqWe+DkZKexUkVazgk1J3P10ZX5wh XhO1ET6BafPyUSyh8WBpkGMv7FyP7bcs7Hm+WgWQ= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1335944601; i=@elandsys.com; bh=QTIxbJu1G0O+y7wlyveAPaTinGjMua5xsgjNbohI0P0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=GA4wM6DyYcKhSxkyzwgg1z4Ra1v6NvTJ/FJwo694B6AuxCc+ikdzjPgjp5GZsUI2g yk5FTb8XpE71DTFIVNOISfNkCHiPzgnebgckCYzMG8Uyhtl0o+KJMOCWNmz9xR4eoi 2CmkT57NJnQcH3GhmqnRMjgrC2uZ0gn31qKdlHLs= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120502001915.098829e0@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 00:20:53 -0700 To: Yoshiro YONEYA From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 02 May 2012 01:01:15 -0700 Subject: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-netext-access-network-option-10 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, 02 May 2012 08:00:03 -0000 Hi Yoshiro, Could you please review draft-ietf-netext-access-network-option-10 by May 14? The administrative details are at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/AppsDirReview Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Wed May 2 01:00:03 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 06E3A21F883A for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 01:00:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.573 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.573 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 teyX4+nCT7Mb for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 01:00:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 092C221F87D0 for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 01:00:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.171]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q427gY5U025236 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 2 May 2012 00:43:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1335944596; i=@elandsys.com; bh=NLM0XM28br/AP6LaCr16WVKoUsxAb3y3J3XLTAB5Z2I=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=VhLLef/pzov7qEvBJvHDXZxhd1GeJi3cwMKyqbzn0JzQPfAa6jrvOmGzvyTGbX/Rd HtmWJMph7/+jEpwiUCr1mvUXDIzAimQiMNBenO3AH3GxrJyxtC8sFlBaEaY7RBr8F7 BQa/aMGDadG2iyjaLIpc1lFv7eTYrjlX3sdjvP+k= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1335944596; i=@elandsys.com; bh=NLM0XM28br/AP6LaCr16WVKoUsxAb3y3J3XLTAB5Z2I=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=msCDKaMGr1pVGCOTXKvYlsP/i6GZiVy8ewFg/LIBIc++Zsb52EzSYdocpGYuPxECO ViNaPGYRUpZyDDkXDv/SrGWfg7T9CDSONf1xmMMAtjKAWWHFMqd4ykm2dYLj5C1/e5 zL6yx1X1aJWblXxNrfR5oBOn1CoYoYqR6AyIrK7s= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120502001417.09882750@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 00:17:27 -0700 To: Enrico Marocco From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 02 May 2012 01:01:15 -0700 Subject: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-mboned-mcaddrdoc-03 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, 02 May 2012 08:00:03 -0000 Hi Enrico, Could you please review draft-ietf-mboned-mcaddrdoc-03 by May 7? The administrative details are at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/AppsDirReview Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Wed May 2 01:00:07 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 299B721F883C for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 01:00:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.574 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.574 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 Q88qABWIvr09 for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 01:00:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B565021F8828 for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 01:00:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.171]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q427gY5c025236 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 2 May 2012 00:43:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1335944613; i=@elandsys.com; bh=+bhWaVZUQ4Jg6nXsE4hmbcMpGnKzMUcEr4m9HFsPzjY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=D+r316kQVL79JNG3xodCJVYZ+RdX1Na0+nsjh5Wjxs5/m6d9kgwOSSHt3DDKcE1kB KG0uL81Ma9Un4v67ObGjvjmWw1TH+TwZdUUmeQ8bk2DOsNGpBRO1oYDPiatOsxZluZ pzSJn1upgMZIpxwSdfv5TCunvDyKcRdHoQWsZuhk= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1335944613; i=@elandsys.com; bh=+bhWaVZUQ4Jg6nXsE4hmbcMpGnKzMUcEr4m9HFsPzjY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=VhHDmTso12EMgK8MHOvs+qz4QBbK8dJdUAG68xizz8nItihgwQnritUYeG9YO2nyj 93FWhNIlKL4CTToUrx8DPnoCAGiPR8xog1VIuAFBfjMrQdICnylj5WXB0e104ABizB hV0OL+K1+LcdcTf5YBd0s32DsOCgCueQMa7Qg1R8= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120502003300.09882f00@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 00:35:16 -0700 To: Dave CROCKER From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 02 May 2012 01:01:15 -0700 Subject: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-bmwg-2544-as-03 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, 02 May 2012 08:00:07 -0000 Hi Dave, [Bcc to appsdir@] Could you please review draft-ietf-bmwg-2544-as-03 by May 14? The administrative details are at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/AppsDirReview Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Wed May 2 01:00:07 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 C7D5421F8844 for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 01:00:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.574 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.574 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 X8l9BJG5b8u5 for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 01:00:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93D1621F883A for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 01:00:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.171]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q427gY5e025236 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 2 May 2012 00:43:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1335944618; i=@elandsys.com; bh=l9+/w7ROCB4yaZRaq1lnHkBQQAehfwmPQSvZqkjYOjU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=1M2otKtLD1cuH3bdC2gj66EMdo03XBE1vPvA7Elf7fFWuyxDaUjHfS7IXGnelLK75 Bm9kxQBvoU6cAvHcgnUD3AbP3CkKvOmiyUTBTekOOLcBkjjLSe4jXTA+leG8F9B+oV Qk0/m+X+50eDnzD8kCblx1bSXV7CahquhqU/0FSE= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1335944618; i=@elandsys.com; bh=l9+/w7ROCB4yaZRaq1lnHkBQQAehfwmPQSvZqkjYOjU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=yi0a0SMScko1o2B/CUgMNMP3KGl9H49f33rPzWcFS0+GqLz0ODYVHFEc+BgkmhTx2 jrxL+maM2+7WS2N0GAN2vdKZIFkPbrIWzRY5dJtrs2+/sbn3F8nWu2IUSzf7n3I02R U8otEdRsiaU8C0acn8wF1E0jq4O2LdY77eBXGGa8= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120502003636.09883048@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 00:41:45 -0700 To: Joseph Yee From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 02 May 2012 01:01:15 -0700 Subject: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-6man-lineid-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: Wed, 02 May 2012 08:00:08 -0000 Hi Joseph, [Bcc to appsdir@] Could you please review draft-ietf-6man-lineid-04 by May 14? The administrative details are at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/AppsDirReview Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Wed May 2 08:55:45 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 3C41211E8085 for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 08:55:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.575 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.575 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 kzJWv7cYT1nk for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 08:55:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C55E221F8582 for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 08:55:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.171]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q42FtNO5026330 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 2 May 2012 08:55:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1335974138; i=@elandsys.com; bh=WUKuCPe+STafpd+ZmYX4ZuiBFGw8gJ5cCeVvNgfeApQ=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=QDZz5OsvatjXmcL9cnp7z+JusUfZg2hS8gJ3PAEQ2968gLlLbQl985bugDyIl7STS XPub7JRy9Br/RnAbVbD1I9NKjKt44Lnkv70SoQx01aJlABMURYxnyo19xQbUP2Hw1J wUVXCGpF+tVVh8Xyr9M4kSC1tEc5v4HIqo6yroDs= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1335974138; i=@elandsys.com; bh=WUKuCPe+STafpd+ZmYX4ZuiBFGw8gJ5cCeVvNgfeApQ=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=WPWrfxmuW9UkrW1UMa/OG9VF2WR/i53QwoqBFNaEaiFvVBIAIZH1Y/kZwwFOyYPuU YZxdBq6RvrRTUUhbFbDMyqdLjgspTm8VBDMg2CfjmIxjWNXOglzDZGWpo80QUM7H+A 1Wi89mSEXGkBu2QVwHS2AvgqH2hAXB70EhBfJI3c= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120502083919.09d0ac90@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 08:42:41 -0700 To: Xiaodong Lee From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 02 May 2012 08:56:16 -0700 Subject: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-18 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, 02 May 2012 15:55:45 -0000 Hi Xiaodong, [Bcc to appsdir@] Could you please review draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-18 by May 14? The administrative details are at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/AppsDirReview Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Wed May 2 08:55:55 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 E8AB911E8085 for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 08:55:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.575 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.575 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 LsMlsmNKMrRQ for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 08:55:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9022721F858D for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 08:55:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.171]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q42FtNO7026330 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 2 May 2012 08:55:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1335974143; i=@elandsys.com; bh=ayIV5Pe65DjIicIvibyffSyMQXmFTUP11YAHuZKbJgI=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=iUkXt5gTmNruCZNGb/u+hiOr3Vv4PgkCRGs/QVi+T0XD3bnN+/qQDBrpi1xLot0oN 4HTwrKBctH6YmhcDbb6cvYRO0nh42s72pvA9jl2EQKLVj9HbEZthO2IDdYbrA/D0Vq y19E9xgg6zookLgBpHFXZMUw4fPr+5X4dfH3Bzm0= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1335974143; i=@elandsys.com; bh=ayIV5Pe65DjIicIvibyffSyMQXmFTUP11YAHuZKbJgI=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=mlW0aDbaQnzdXiBatUpRczW/xVtRrPKotckZxB47cuuqxloCNdCfLRnRsn8rViYB8 gYCdluSTius+7bReOnjaONpOHDPz1avMuRaxXyZQrLVV8W/TbgV0kVToXsLmJju+qq xCwcu7frURPbqvaNgRLFaJAkB1TCD60kCUaHZksQ= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120502084708.09d0ab48@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 08:48:31 -0700 To: Eran Hammer From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 02 May 2012 08:56:16 -0700 Subject: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-mile-template-03 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, 02 May 2012 15:55:56 -0000 Hi Eran, Could you please review draft-ietf-mile-template-03 by May 14? The administrative details are at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/AppsDirReview Best regards, -sm From msk@cloudmark.com Wed May 2 09:33:48 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 3270211E808C for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 09:33:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.558 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.558 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.041, 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 8r9UbRw8J8aJ for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 09:33:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41D7D11E8088 for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 09:33:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.25]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id 54aB1j0010ZaKgw014aBSp; Wed, 02 May 2012 09:34:11 -0700 X-CMAE-Match: 0 X-CMAE-Score: 0.00 X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=Dv3UCRD+ c=1 sm=1 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:17 a=LvckAehuu68A:10 a=a-Nm2aKG6g8A:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=wPPvXI8NAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=osqtGAahpMTVCNoAT6cA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=pOcSzP0BEVkA:10 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:117 Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::2524:76b6:a865:539c%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Wed, 2 May 2012 09:33:46 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "appsdir@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Request for review: draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03 Thread-Index: AQHNKDc5p0wDtr7ZXEiSINtCPFwAIZa2sikg Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 16:33:46 +0000 Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810A567@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120501235700.0936c0e0@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120501235700.0936c0e0@elandnews.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1335976451; bh=fxto6vkv3VXemlz747sCdA6W7ZgRktv75T2fI/+N5p4=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=BlUvE7JAPHa8yTz93pNhS0GSXSw4gcExZL94Jk5bby7yqCYBJXfg89W/lwaF9fyMr GFlNi6bzcEcf4WMwC1vHogHkX6SRUspksCndk5yM4YlxZ/2ZLUMKbVUAn5q0cbMxUc 60eJfJ9Mffl5gUz1HuaDdvLl75cvJSjkjJXwgt+M= Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03 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, 02 May 2012 16:33:48 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: SM [mailto:sm+ietf@elandsys.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 11:59 PM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy > Subject: Request for review: draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03 >=20 > Hi Murray, >=20 > [Bcc to appsdir@] >=20 > Could you please review draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03 by May 14? >=20 > The administrative details are at > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/AppsDirReview Wilco. -MSK From msk@cloudmark.com Wed May 2 10:07:10 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 860EE21F84B2 for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 10:07:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.558 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.558 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.041, 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 PNGdzwT4qrJS for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 10:07:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A57BB21F84AE for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 10:07:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.26]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id 556n1j0010as01C0156naz; Wed, 02 May 2012 10:06:47 -0700 X-CMAE-Match: 0 X-CMAE-Score: 0.00 X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=bcDpoZzB c=1 sm=1 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:17 a=LvckAehuu68A:10 a=s95_sykgwzEA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=9BiPPiKm7Yj52aEd308A:9 a=NDrjV157aeDqK-6fpkcA:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:117 Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas902.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::54de:dc60:5f3e:334%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Wed, 2 May 2012 10:06:47 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "appsdir@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] Apps Area Directorate Report for April 2012 Thread-Index: AQHNKIQPBW2RS6pMXkKSsD5J36Ixzpa2urag Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 17:06:46 +0000 Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810A5F9@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120501223143.0a4e9a30@elandnews.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120502000504.09882378@resistor.net> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810A524@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120502093653.0acd0128@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120502093653.0acd0128@resistor.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1335978407; bh=gRM2obGTLWgozPvBRpt4GGOJDHDqu1U/Sf7FCJqWzMc=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=CNkTwHCLFcs27OhD7pZLGpgdZKcfr2FCVV2bO15bh0CUfxkE/cHC5vp8dWm7cODaY bgfDj9maQoOFtGgzeeVrmNDXbSapewr/DQfisdiif5xVi/dd8aMOs/AK+C83zscO+m xw9TLIuGgZL6KjzJ90YopGIUOViM3kTCjPF4b5hM= Subject: Re: [appsdir] [apps-discuss] Apps Area Directorate Report for April 2012 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, 02 May 2012 17:07:10 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org= ] On Behalf Of S Moonesamy > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 9:53 AM > To: apps-discuss@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Apps Area Directorate Report for April 2012 >=20 > I apologize for the omission. Thanks for pointing it out. It helps to > keep the AppsDir tracker ( > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/tracker ) up-to-date. Sorry, I thought you were handling those updates as the reviews came in. I= 'll remember to tag them myself in the future. -MSK From sm@elandsys.com Wed May 2 10:39:36 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 CEA9A21F8555 for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 10:39:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.576 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.576 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, 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 8ocEv-ZXxSCN for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 10:39:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C310421F8557 for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 10:39:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.171]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q42HdMdc005110 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 10:39:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1335980374; i=@elandsys.com; bh=Y0IGz43S8MYBJbf5FM/jilxkSuPhGzSFIAQR4gmD6Fo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc; b=O9KKc78FbFCSGPJMi9cVPH9+A/+ekX6K79GUGviIt8uQFszzu6ZbZiRHkmRrzu+g3 452JjaWpgsvFG5Dy86exdGZ/BX0QTpafJKN7QB5isnq68L7mwYGzO+UCoon6v+dUrS H+/WKHvcNCaVcjeAu13m9Ew4eWyYh4UWp+1OFOkU= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1335980374; i=@elandsys.com; bh=Y0IGz43S8MYBJbf5FM/jilxkSuPhGzSFIAQR4gmD6Fo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc; b=WtxrQUg26T/9QHj+gmB1OR4V4o9hm3GYIOSX59dRRLehVn+xF/PplemEzN8Lr4Xw6 ZQV0VFzEO8Lp1+u97WmLjbfk1bdRqYHO97/BTJJ0bk7cAHvujl20yiI48RSVwWNjFF 4lo141dRevaFm3M7oFocml2E06+Ku4OfQbMTAJEg= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120502101306.0b1f2008@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 10:38:53 -0700 To: appsdir@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810A5F9@exch-mbx901.corp.cl oudmark.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120501223143.0a4e9a30@elandnews.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120502000504.09882378@resistor.net> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810A524@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120502093653.0acd0128@resistor.net> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810A5F9@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [appsdir] [apps-discuss] Apps Area Directorate Report for April 2012 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, 02 May 2012 17:39:36 -0000 Hi Murray, At 10:06 02-05-2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >Sorry, I thought you were handling those updates as the reviews came >in. I'll remember to tag them myself in the future. I do. I read your review and then I got side-tracked by SPFBIS. Feel free to update the tracker and the issue tracker. Best regards, -sm From msk@cloudmark.com Wed May 2 10:51:08 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 D0A4A11E8081 for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 10:51:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.558 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.558 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 NJxbHpAGJafY for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 10:51:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10B3C21F85E3 for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 10:51:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.26]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id 55rX1j0010as01C015rXuA; Wed, 02 May 2012 10:51:31 -0700 X-CMAE-Match: 0 X-CMAE-Score: 0.00 X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=Dv3UCRD+ c=1 sm=1 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:17 a=LvckAehuu68A:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=uNBhHUB6VviFXw772ngA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=yMhMjlubAAAA:8 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=t5j9_V1HdrnNPcT1UQoA:9 a=gKO2Hq4RSVkA:10 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10 a=hTZeC7Yk6K0A:10 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:117 Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas902.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::54de:dc60:5f3e:334%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Wed, 2 May 2012 10:51:06 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "appsdir@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Review requests Thread-Index: Ac0ojCW2GJ0i31Q5Seylqwjq6Ye6zQ== Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 17:51:05 +0000 Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810A727@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810A727exchmbx901corpclo_" MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1335981091; bh=G8LvJo4+h5GjDeyeBpGktMx/u8c55xl2YCRkqm+EHVQ=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=ZFGCMmlz5N/drFMmm0dBLqDIenKgtNigtYmyCfq4cWhTinizoCCJ/d5HD/CyCEGzF arMQbCP9t+75kqw0gy9f4H2pkPicExD4POMpNEIHdS+kfE1oz0IqdegJXIcSrq7QpD eYVpS9J1kSWss1HmSzpWEP+TEyhtQ12FcEuqP9Pc= Subject: [appsdir] Review requests 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, 02 May 2012 17:51:09 -0000 --_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810A727exchmbx901corpclo_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all (and especially SM), The current way of doing review requests is for SM to email the reviewer an= d Bcc appsdir. Because of the Bcc, all of these review requests land in my= inbox rather than in my "appsdir" folder. I have to move them all manuall= y each time. Would it be possible to do something like email each person individually, a= nd then put a summary of the newly-assigned reviews on appsdir directly? -MSK --_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810A727exchmbx901corpclo_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi all (and especially SM),

 

The current way of doing review requests is for SM t= o email the reviewer and Bcc appsdir.  Because of the Bcc, all of thes= e review requests land in my inbox rather than in my “appsdir” = folder.  I have to move them all manually each time.

 

Would it be possible to do something like email each= person individually, and then put a summary of the newly-assigned reviews = on appsdir directly?

 

-MSK

--_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810A727exchmbx901corpclo_-- From sm@elandsys.com Wed May 2 11:32:34 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 AF43C11E8083 for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 11:32:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.576 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.576 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, 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 FhIfFhilFpjx for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 11:32:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5090711E8081 for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 11:32:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.171]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q42IWJl4007619 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 11:32:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1335983551; i=@elandsys.com; bh=G/XQPgfB03C+x7HVOid2VO+AkNUyPST7WaLqppJJKlI=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc; b=iuGyHGmSAFCeXZwVxgLkCWpMDp/9dHa0NXpsrscWIZ7UMi7nNmlY9w3gxoCkOKyAu 8Mq5oVjqdkbJp3BGbs1YXIcBms0Qkx0Ulzzy+1EhWFDzoq3hTv6CZ4hwzpAidSdwxf 0uZf7A38fPZ2awHOmW1tZscUHpa0L/nvqLPBLvts= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1335983551; i=@elandsys.com; bh=G/XQPgfB03C+x7HVOid2VO+AkNUyPST7WaLqppJJKlI=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc; b=gdrD4ydS3PRUNb0Y/JrGH/UkioXUzpYd8WalGg9ZkTLiitxHc52PpkCPY1e95EbHm 6sTaLsTUnE/y6v8BKavPmaCfm2w4H3TNlETUS4K2hZ/QWzTZj4qDDW/oRc66WYIP/I SsjZp9TxtrbHvZ0fAEc76YD4GHuKSs++LdrLrZh0= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120502110246.0acc49f0@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 11:30:13 -0700 To: appsdir@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810A727@exch-mbx901.corp.cl oudmark.com> References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392810A727@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [appsdir] Review requests 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, 02 May 2012 18:32:34 -0000 Hi Murray, At 10:51 02-05-2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >The current way of doing review requests is for SM to email the >reviewer and Bcc appsdir. Because of the Bcc, all of these review >requests land in my inbox rather than in my "appsdir" folder. I >have to move them all manually each time. One problem with the Bcc is that it generates an email to the other list moderators. That's a hassle for them. >Would it be possible to do something like email each person >individually, and then put a summary of the newly-assigned reviews >on appsdir directly? Ok. :-) If nobody says anything about the above, I will assume that all reviewers don't see have problem with the above. Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Thu May 3 09:55:10 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 3BB8F21F8652 for ; Thu, 3 May 2012 09:55:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.576 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.576 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, 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 6-Ni5DYK9iKR for ; Thu, 3 May 2012 09:55:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C8E821F8643 for ; Thu, 3 May 2012 09:55:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.235.232]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q43GshbR005149 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 3 May 2012 09:54:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1336064107; i=@elandsys.com; bh=metH4YwiCHK+XgXpq/JgSRb8T6BIJvmBGP65A0nd/24=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=v1Bd85MS31PhBMm94/TeMLWfupLsfKXKOW2V8lG0o1wsc/irt+k7kW3PFr4qRGhDh Q+0YDrpvAanytZKkK9azdhrwd/zri+uT361924+DJFEFcdW78TKS0VFpj8edYT6LH+ e9w1Mbhw6f7MIkwBo5GmDzteSBBt7P7ZDcq8jyew= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1336064107; i=@elandsys.com; bh=metH4YwiCHK+XgXpq/JgSRb8T6BIJvmBGP65A0nd/24=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=pxAy2dRCGx287D+gCPn2N632lew1Sx8T5k7SXiSZPyUr50+CdGbqSMZupQb4qJbbW H0NDiM/fv7KHszjay1hb1hBsi40nIUGDUmSMW9ZyAwyCP52zmMPi6+4M1V5WoqRiZR 9pFsAkemB9PphHB98RXvAIpQb+uT8EutxcdpHpHY= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120503094510.090c1f50@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 09:52:56 -0700 To: Aaron Stone , Glenn Parsons , Larry Masinter , Carsten Bormann , Yoshiro YONEYA , Xiaodong Lee From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: [appsdir] Assignment reminder 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, 03 May 2012 16:55:10 -0000 Hello, This is a gentle reminder about assignments ( http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/report/1 ). There are four pending assignments for the EAI drafts. Could Aaron and Glenn look into them? I have not received any confirmation about the last round of assignments from the following persons: - Larry - Carsten - Yoshiro - Xiaodong Could you please confirm that you will be following up on the assignment request? Thanks, -sm From stpeter@stpeter.im Thu May 3 11:05:00 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 B833E21F854E for ; Thu, 3 May 2012 11:05:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.603 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.603 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 hNyMyz+kftvl for ; Thu, 3 May 2012 11:04:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A97C21F862B for ; Thu, 3 May 2012 11:04:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [64.101.72.115] (unknown [64.101.72.115]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 49C5C40058; Thu, 3 May 2012 12:20:00 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4FA2C8C9.9040405@stpeter.im> Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 12:04:57 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Claudio Allocchio References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120502002205.098a8038@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: appsdir@ietf.org, SM Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-codec-opus-12 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, 03 May 2012 18:05:00 -0000 Hi guys, Robert Sparks asked me to review this spec, so I will do that during IETF Last Call. I'm not an audio engineer either, but Robert asked me to review it as a "sanity check" to see if someone who is not an expert in audio/codec technologies can understand the spec. Peter On 5/2/12 1:54 AM, Claudio Allocchio wrote: > > On Wed, 2 May 2012, SM wrote: > >> Hi Claudio, >> >> [Bcc to appsdir@] >> >> Could you please review draft-ietf-codec-opus-12 by May 14? BTW, I >> understand that this is a difficult document to review. > > let me have a look at it first! I need to see if I feel I know enough to > do that. I'm not an audio engineer, and that's a very detailed technical > specification. > > (I do know at least a couple of audio engineers which could give a > detailed review... but none of the ever interacted with the IETF > processes and works). > > I'll be back soon! > > > >> The administrative details are at >> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/AppsDirReview >> >> Best regards, >> -sm >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > appsdir mailing list > appsdir@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/appsdir From sm@elandsys.com Thu May 3 11:23:52 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 E9C9C21F863D for ; Thu, 3 May 2012 11:23:52 -0700 (PDT) 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 f2o-pBtaFZZ4 for ; Thu, 3 May 2012 11:23:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8849921F865B for ; Thu, 3 May 2012 11:23:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.235.232]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q43INYBr001268 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 3 May 2012 11:23:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1336069427; i=@elandsys.com; bh=PEFXFF/sc3DjMC6/3Hfo/iEw+l9rCeEkKtIOGW3JVZ4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=ed6tcVQdDj/mNJ6GTNc2B/ShEVxq1SHU4AcygUSKpDQ2KwVBkLYUnzRL+ZdKElB/E yg0lQQyVuH1K0wFqnmpHQmnyKZ+qG+JnJ7nu6kudLaJZCdvYDAaZ7JqtOGfZakby9w /9RYTuE7FqLxPlK4+5qh6xrXiFPLkHmTlth5cR58= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1336069427; i=@elandsys.com; bh=PEFXFF/sc3DjMC6/3Hfo/iEw+l9rCeEkKtIOGW3JVZ4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=ica1Np8B8WKwUNx6cOl3qSQokI3zAWL1R06JSSaiATp63QvM6UKtUJ6aOkTv5gykv /b4LQQAynJbSWWhNQ+BLl39HeAe36mnOgVfeK3r8qI6sLffKkrX5YitV21zvJIEMdy PzoXc2r0WI6aMFyBoiLkJRGGkGXLkblaTXSaGf+Q= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120503111047.097d2720@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 11:20:49 -0700 To: Peter Saint-Andre From: SM In-Reply-To: <4FA2C8C9.9040405@stpeter.im> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120502002205.098a8038@elandnews.com> <4FA2C8C9.9040405@stpeter.im> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-codec-opus-12 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, 03 May 2012 18:23:53 -0000 Hi Peter, At 11:04 03-05-2012, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >Robert Sparks asked me to review this spec, so I will do that during >IETF Last Call. I'm not an audio engineer either, but Robert asked me to >review it as a "sanity check" to see if someone who is not an expert in >audio/codec technologies can understand the spec. Ok. I suggest doing it as AppsDir review. Best regards, -sm From stpeter@stpeter.im Thu May 3 11:30:32 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 913FD21F8674 for ; Thu, 3 May 2012 11:30:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.603 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.603 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 an0jsHQkQxnF for ; Thu, 3 May 2012 11:30:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21A2C21F8668 for ; Thu, 3 May 2012 11:30:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [64.101.72.115] (unknown [64.101.72.115]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D288A40058; Thu, 3 May 2012 12:45:33 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4FA2CEC6.5000009@stpeter.im> Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 12:30:30 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SM References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120502002205.098a8038@elandnews.com> <4FA2C8C9.9040405@stpeter.im> <6.2.5.6.2.20120503111047.097d2720@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120503111047.097d2720@elandnews.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-codec-opus-12 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, 03 May 2012 18:30:32 -0000 On 5/3/12 12:20 PM, SM wrote: > Hi Peter, > At 11:04 03-05-2012, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> Robert Sparks asked me to review this spec, so I will do that during >> IETF Last Call. I'm not an audio engineer either, but Robert asked me to >> review it as a "sanity check" to see if someone who is not an expert in >> audio/codec technologies can understand the spec. > > Ok. I suggest doing it as AppsDir review. Ack. From Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it Thu May 3 13:14:30 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 8125E21F861D for ; Thu, 3 May 2012 13:14:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.582 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.582 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.017, 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 MQiNd1hnbXgk for ; Thu, 3 May 2012 13:14:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cyrus.dir.garr.it (cyrus.dir.garr.it [IPv6:2001:760:0:158::29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A849121F861C for ; Thu, 3 May 2012 13:14:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webcam1-all.garrtest.units.it (webcam1-all.garrtest.units.it [140.105.201.5]) (authenticated bits=0) by cyrus.dir.garr.it (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q43KDdQv074747 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 3 May 2012 22:13:40 +0200 (CEST) X-DomainKeys: Sendmail DomainKeys Filter v1.0.2 cyrus.dir.garr.it q43KDdQv074747 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=garr.it; c=simple; q=dns; b=R8w26zsSCKDQiz4UDT8zovw+tc6jnhMXIOpP69a3atXD4iKqU108ZAyRd43S0F09t zxJJy0tfycP2o8NfwxWZzLcYIQRR/lhG/mZwLqILSM92pUNMyRnf8bNcgJnyEBkMcU7 4yzUi+wIlaMnE2uoDjJ0YuWZcLy3Nmnoo7Ku8h0= Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 22:13:39 +0200 (CEST) From: Claudio Allocchio X-X-Sender: claudio@webcam1-all.garrtest.units.it To: Peter Saint-Andre In-Reply-To: <4FA2C8C9.9040405@stpeter.im> Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120502002205.098a8038@elandnews.com> <4FA2C8C9.9040405@stpeter.im> 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, Claudio Allocchio , SM Subject: Re: [appsdir] Request for review: draft-ietf-codec-opus-12 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, 03 May 2012 20:14:30 -0000 On Thu, 3 May 2012, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > Hi guys, > > Robert Sparks asked me to review this spec, so I will do that during > IETF Last Call. I'm not an audio engineer either, but Robert asked me to > review it as a "sanity check" to see if someone who is not an expert in > audio/codec technologies can understand the spec. I'm the ame position as you: not an audio engineer... and I'll do the same with the same limitaions. > > Peter > > On 5/2/12 1:54 AM, Claudio Allocchio wrote: >> >> On Wed, 2 May 2012, SM wrote: >> >>> Hi Claudio, >>> >>> [Bcc to appsdir@] >>> >>> Could you please review draft-ietf-codec-opus-12 by May 14? BTW, I >>> understand that this is a difficult document to review. >> >> let me have a look at it first! I need to see if I feel I know enough to >> do that. I'm not an audio engineer, and that's a very detailed technical >> specification. >> >> (I do know at least a couple of audio engineers which could give a >> detailed review... but none of the ever interacted with the IETF >> processes and works). >> >> I'll be back soon! >> >> > >>> The administrative details are at >>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/AppsDirReview >>> >>> Best regards, >>> -sm >>> >>> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 sm@elandsys.com Wed May 9 14:31:01 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 D759411E80DF for ; Wed, 9 May 2012 14:31:01 -0700 (PDT) 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 rBTVHBbxq6hw for ; Wed, 9 May 2012 14:30:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 517AD11E80D2 for ; Wed, 9 May 2012 14:30:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.238.173]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q49LUjem017644 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 9 May 2012 14:30:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1336599057; i=@elandsys.com; bh=V7rNUiC0N+UrQF17rvOQOBbzz0WoCGtfHkFCOwxgu8k=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=yHXaNlZt3SH0DGwviHQwYoNyR8H90aV0Zm50hbi2EpNVqMgfGiitdzMyi9iMu0ohD Wf/quLorLogTTwTd1duTVs4kS9LjN692jMPu9zmuaNs9I5uP9MrvmzEtuQVCEEjgcT DI0Ed0MUblvY6KCY3zSEgtVbedtVbGhnvGKwMq50= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1336599057; i=@elandsys.com; bh=V7rNUiC0N+UrQF17rvOQOBbzz0WoCGtfHkFCOwxgu8k=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=GDHkj3eMCRzXH8dRsZFMrv+ns2hiFHGp1Dhn+gc6DoM71vhovzQCu0sZyLf6hDJmd bPd7OZMntPm/TgZvRBa644VG9bCtX+UCxNa95my4t9hB2Epta8NXxbDQHlYLWkFwkb 1S72PVfVw8zTtKULi6ORRwRwFc3IAhCQTE1cn7e4= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120509135443.0a7837a0@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 14:28:32 -0700 To: appsdir@ietf.org From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [appsdir] List of drafts for review 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, 09 May 2012 21:31:02 -0000 Hello, Here's the list of drafts for review. If you have any preference or you don't want to be assigned a draft, please let me know. draft-farrell-decade-ni-06 draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-13 draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpmss-04 draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs-07 draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05 draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-07 Best regards, -sm From stpeter@stpeter.im Wed May 9 14:40:59 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 06BAC11E80BF for ; Wed, 9 May 2012 14:40:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.558 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.558 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.041, 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 QOIA7d3R95go for ; Wed, 9 May 2012 14:40:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52B6C11E80BB for ; Wed, 9 May 2012 14:40:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.9] (unknown [216.17.175.160]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C10C140058; Wed, 9 May 2012 15:56:19 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4FAAE467.50407@stpeter.im> Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 15:40:55 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SM References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120509135443.0a7837a0@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120509135443.0a7837a0@elandnews.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [appsdir] List of drafts for review 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, 09 May 2012 21:40:59 -0000 On 5/9/12 3:28 PM, SM wrote: > draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05 Hi SM, It probably makes sense for someone (the same person) to review both draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05 and draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03 because these two I-Ds are closely related. (Full disclosure: I am a co-author of the latter document.) Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ From msk@cloudmark.com Wed May 9 14:44:21 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 52FED21F848B for ; Wed, 9 May 2012 14:44:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.562 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.037, 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 CbxhVgNswLHU for ; Wed, 9 May 2012 14:44:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C19CE21F8483 for ; Wed, 9 May 2012 14:44:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.26]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id 7xk91j0010as01C01xk9sg; Wed, 09 May 2012 14:44:09 -0700 X-CMAE-Match: 0 X-CMAE-Score: 0.00 X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=R/iB6KtX c=1 sm=1 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:17 a=LvckAehuu68A:10 a=dW-8OchGTGMA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=92Nqt88Yjt7XBNklM1sA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:117 Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas902.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::54de:dc60:5f3e:334%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Wed, 9 May 2012 14:44:09 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "appsdir@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [appsdir] List of drafts for review Thread-Index: AQHNLisJQd7FZw5jsEyd5Gd/AJ/f7pbCcdaA//+LafA= Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 21:44:08 +0000 Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392811BA95@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120509135443.0a7837a0@elandnews.com> <4FAAE467.50407@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <4FAAE467.50407@stpeter.im> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1336599849; bh=fBtQQ1zx+4ZhUgcROKC7iGPzKaNj3HLT7NpiuSumcGQ=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=IE/r+tjIFAXn3dOzN+5LZVH0XsQlHTOx14uBDPIwEna9TNMIiK7kVPbBmlvQMyQfU 3XtvkTqpMCJt/af6BPZCCQI4XVyWbhlwRlchN+n2ArEpKFnKCZOTUC0vCyjmdqCBwl D/JQ/LUYMOsCkUf3T0AjQNLk4DhY//6CvuDM1jfY= Subject: Re: [appsdir] List of drafts for review 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, 09 May 2012 21:44:21 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: appsdir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:appsdir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behal= f Of Peter Saint-Andre > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 2:41 PM > To: SM > Cc: appsdir@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [appsdir] List of drafts for review >=20 > It probably makes sense for someone (the same person) to review both > draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05 and draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03 > because these two I-Ds are closely related. (Full disclosure: I am a > co-author of the latter document.) That's me on the latter, so I can pick up the former. Due when? -MSK From sm@elandsys.com Wed May 9 15:20:21 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 5856D21F84CE for ; Wed, 9 May 2012 15:20:21 -0700 (PDT) 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 aktqvQjZiWjj for ; Wed, 9 May 2012 15:20:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D46B011E80BB for ; Wed, 9 May 2012 15:20:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.238.173]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q49MJmOb003535 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 9 May 2012 15:19:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1336602001; i=@elandsys.com; bh=VXyjAv1xeiLyIcLIDkbAzWEswQUdGuJvtZf7UNQTLP0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=rrfgRfErPRWs1DYiW5aXLUO1QlxT9e9kPS6Q1GdFgodQ+3Q/jQ+FyP+auVh3uKMg1 TzjGlxoGqPQSX75LLgxyEcRVcSozLWvVcw8X8IM3XVWVYAtL9InQFqLSr7G/0OXQ4/ ueXnGuduMrHwhc7L5EEgveFrq76/VWpelrqzcG/Q= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1336602001; i=@elandsys.com; bh=VXyjAv1xeiLyIcLIDkbAzWEswQUdGuJvtZf7UNQTLP0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=YCxrJqKpnUTNz73DKg/zG2F/bCDoqCtjqfnN4UPWhrFUIarveVVYDAUeTpw4kCmLE PMrPiT4XXGoBYCwy79gBoY/2YlZpSxGh//z5CvhBA16/aqlrW9avPO74DV8ihVl89T WU2JdE1C2kZubUWcVcr1j4xtydbCkxVkAFjo6Dfo= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120509144932.0aa61a58@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 14:58:57 -0700 To: Peter Saint-Andre , "Murray S. Kucherawy" From: SM In-Reply-To: <4FAAE467.50407@stpeter.im> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120509135443.0a7837a0@elandnews.com> <4FAAE467.50407@stpeter.im> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [appsdir] List of drafts for review 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, 09 May 2012 22:20:21 -0000 At 14:40 09-05-2012, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >It probably makes sense for someone (the same person) to review both >draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05 and draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03 >because these two I-Ds are closely related. (Full disclosure: I am a >co-author of the latter document.) Thanks for commenting on this. I was going to suggest someone else. At 14:44 09-05-2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >That's me on the latter, so I can pick up the former. Due when? Ok, it should be assigned to you and the due date will be May 22. Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Thu May 10 11:53:46 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 43B1111E8099 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 11:53:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.578 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.578 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 wTDdxkR-HSC3 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 11:53:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90B3911E8098 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 11:53:45 -0700 (PDT) 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 q4AIrSR6009785 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 10 May 2012 11:53:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120510114817.0a88fe40@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 11:52:48 -0700 To: Aaron Stone , Xiaodong Lee From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: [appsdir] Paging reviewers 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, 10 May 2012 18:53:46 -0000 Hi Aaron, Xiaodong, I sent a message to the email addresses listed in the From: header. I haven't received any response yet. If the email address I used is incorrect, could someone on appsdir@ send me the correct email address? If you know any of the two reviewers, please ask them to get in touch with me. Thanks, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Thu May 10 16:10:14 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 AA85921F85B5 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 16:10:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.578 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.578 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 ktD-xiMqqkde for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 16:10:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F57021F85B1 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 16:10:14 -0700 (PDT) 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 q4AN9Kle010261 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 10 May 2012 16:09:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120510160659.093cbe50@elandsys.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 16:08:43 -0700 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-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-18 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, 10 May 2012 23:10:14 -0000 Hi Xiaodong, Could you please review draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-18 by May 21? The administrative details are at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/AppsDirReview Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Fri May 11 08:12:35 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 4028F21F85E4 for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 08:12:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.578 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.578 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 M3H0ENM1M+9H for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 08:12:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5C4D21F85E3 for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 08:12:34 -0700 (PDT) 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 q4BFCIWW002262 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 08:12:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120511075727.098a2ed0@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 08:12:01 -0700 To: appsdir@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120509144932.0aa61a58@elandnews.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120509135443.0a7837a0@elandnews.com> <4FAAE467.50407@stpeter.im> <6.2.5.6.2.20120509144932.0aa61a58@elandnews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [appsdir] List of drafts for review 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, 11 May 2012 15:12:35 -0000 Hello, Here's the assignment list and the due dates: May 22: draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05 - Murray May 28: draft-farrell-decade-ni-06 - Martin draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-13 - Sal draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpmss-04 - Enrico draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs-07 - Mark draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-08 - Alexey As a disclosure note, I left it to Alexey to suggest a reviewer for draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-08 as I will be the document shepherd for that draft. Best regards, -sm From msk@cloudmark.com Fri May 11 09:30:09 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 8211021F86C2 for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 09:30:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.562 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.037, 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 tyy+Loi8GySS for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 09:30:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF4CE21F86BD for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 09:30:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.25]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id 8gW71j0030ZaKgw01gW7Sv; Fri, 11 May 2012 09:30:07 -0700 X-CMAE-Match: 0 X-CMAE-Score: 0.00 X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=R/iB6KtX c=1 sm=1 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:17 a=LvckAehuu68A:10 a=dW-8OchGTGMA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=LF1SCkSY5BZsvkR1Wl4A:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:117 Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::2524:76b6:a865:539c%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Fri, 11 May 2012 09:30:08 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "appsdir@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [appsdir] List of drafts for review Thread-Index: AQHNLisJQd7FZw5jsEyd5Gd/AJ/f7pbCcdaAgAAFCYCAArL4gP//oD7w Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 16:30:07 +0000 Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392811E570@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120509135443.0a7837a0@elandnews.com> <4FAAE467.50407@stpeter.im> <6.2.5.6.2.20120509144932.0aa61a58@elandnews.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120511075727.098a2ed0@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120511075727.098a2ed0@elandnews.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1336753807; bh=Adh4Uq/9UjQYa7iiXmYPWEH5DmjcNsJRnBVjWlGbWtg=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=rJKYXHUSbm7aEa3nOcHV6MtfAx34gWJ6huMfUm4oPhYTN0DsDPDsI4//UjWEITtU+ PdUm5jsVey5/BQkwTkIbO8gww2C3tX0CsdMQF5GV0fCwHxXcbrNvcr1EUVmJ6zdHZN yp/qiV/UP4kCfAsWMTtA3yU+PH3g39XFsFAApWFk= Subject: Re: [appsdir] List of drafts for review 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, 11 May 2012 16:30:09 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: appsdir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:appsdir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behal= f Of SM > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 8:12 AM > To: appsdir@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [appsdir] List of drafts for review >=20 > Hello, >=20 > Here's the assignment list and the due dates: >=20 > May 22: >=20 > draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05 - Murray I also have draft-polk-ipr-disclosure due on the same day. -MSK From sm@elandsys.com Fri May 11 09:53:42 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 2898B21F8645 for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 09:53:39 -0700 (PDT) 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 XO876iR91PPk for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 09:53:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA85221F859E for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 09:53:37 -0700 (PDT) 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 q4BGrLa6015489 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 11 May 2012 09:53:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120511093506.08e499a8@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 09:51:28 -0700 To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" From: SM In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392811E570@exch-mbx901.corp.cl oudmark.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120509135443.0a7837a0@elandnews.com> <4FAAE467.50407@stpeter.im> <6.2.5.6.2.20120509144932.0aa61a58@elandnews.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120511075727.098a2ed0@elandnews.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392811E570@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [appsdir] List of drafts for review 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, 11 May 2012 16:53:43 -0000 Hi Murray, At 09:30 11-05-2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >I also have draft-polk-ipr-disclosure due on the same day. I forgot to mention that you can take longer for the reviews as there is ample time before the IESG telechat. The two assignments are unusual as there are not Apps related. Best regards, -sm From msk@cloudmark.com Fri May 11 09:54:44 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 BE89921F859E for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 09:54:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.563 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.563 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.036, 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 D87mQu9aJgOY for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 09:54:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3355E21F8526 for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 09:54:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.25]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id 8gvD1j0010ZaKgw01gvDeG; Fri, 11 May 2012 09:55:13 -0700 X-CMAE-Match: 0 X-CMAE-Score: 0.00 X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=Xth4yC59 c=1 sm=1 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:17 a=LvckAehuu68A:10 a=dW-8OchGTGMA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=wPPvXI8NAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=htrNQ_K7GHRq0q8auLkA:9 a=svG3Oj2cWQM9Wj6CHpcA:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=pOcSzP0BEVkA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:117 Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::2524:76b6:a865:539c%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Fri, 11 May 2012 09:54:43 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "appsdir@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [appsdir] List of drafts for review Thread-Index: AQHNLisJQd7FZw5jsEyd5Gd/AJ/f7pbCcdaAgAAFCYCAArL4gP//oD7wgAAGzfOAAAA5kA== Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 16:54:43 +0000 Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392811E62B@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120509135443.0a7837a0@elandnews.com> <4FAAE467.50407@stpeter.im> <6.2.5.6.2.20120509144932.0aa61a58@elandnews.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120511075727.098a2ed0@elandnews.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392811E570@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120511093506.08e499a8@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120511093506.08e499a8@elandnews.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1336755313; bh=LZZEh3GnsBaB06IRI4ASP2rcXyJrAHGXTTwbdlCjx7c=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=MvX+J2rJzAXQboNco8WQILfUgKHav+gFkoHFq6EoUmZ1Q9+EdV/XNS1t6Is2vOTuL sn5IzpI5Z30jBCJemIZEtBDZ3u9Hb4bQ7EIfJLsFvQ/TYqgztRTGSuRP1k//TVtjPq EFbuS9K/wgruCLjqOdzv6W0yd/Af37Ulgf8unXXA= Subject: Re: [appsdir] List of drafts for review 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, 11 May 2012 16:54:44 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: SM [mailto:sm+ietf@elandsys.com] > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 9:51 AM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy > Cc: appsdir@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [appsdir] List of drafts for review >=20 > >I also have draft-polk-ipr-disclosure due on the same day. >=20 > I forgot to mention that you can take longer for the reviews as there > is ample time before the IESG telechat. The two assignments are > unusual as there are not Apps related. Just making sure your list is complete. No problem with the due date. -MSK From sm@elandsys.com Tue May 15 22:31:03 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 509F121F86F1 for ; Tue, 15 May 2012 22:31:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, 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 X8EZHpOGw2oF for ; Tue, 15 May 2012 22:31:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED38221F86EF for ; Tue, 15 May 2012 22:30:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.235.79]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4G5UjaA020273 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 15 May 2012 22:30:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1337146257; i=@elandsys.com; bh=9KG/XkGuu5jYeg13CWHRUatQCOLFw+rkVMZI0EbW7sU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=bDLlCOaAvwMMlJiIjIU9ITNeMcN/XqsX2kEJ3jy2bphgS0xoKG4npcJ9DtG/L/bAC wjQTYGE2iQxnMTL5r/i6zjjRhsrcSC3EUtEGCcv6Lq+cIGseIX0AymE9U1JgLn/lh7 0VrAaKRcnPAmesbkQCV/78Mk28gFKnJcossGA7Ac= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1337146257; i=@elandsys.com; bh=9KG/XkGuu5jYeg13CWHRUatQCOLFw+rkVMZI0EbW7sU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=TBm8r4QyBb36zTacWV+iSSYmGX1MMLPIs5DjVytWnzZRGe3xKhN8LMRc4j3dub7kC gpUOmhtc0z1D5ImCaUSFVPCdKDXylalHV8XtB9zLqsCPaE7ZVbGo5phyqL+DAHctG/ bGbCzKcHU/XRMlQha/9GEqa++HCnZsMTRSCaT6Q0= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120515220127.0a3ac7f8@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 22:23:51 -0700 To: appsdir@ietf.org From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [appsdir] List of drafts for review 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, 16 May 2012 05:31:03 -0000 Hello, Here's the list of drafts for review: draft-ietf-6lowpan-btle-07 draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls-04 draft-camarillo-rai-media-policy-dataset-01 draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-10 draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-gtsm-06 draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-13 As usual, if you would like to be assigned one of the reviews, or if you prefer not to be assigned one of them, let me know. Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Tue May 15 22:50:12 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 F3D2E21F87ED for ; Tue, 15 May 2012 22:50:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, 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 qn1EbDREjwsO for ; Tue, 15 May 2012 22:50:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64DA621F87E7 for ; Tue, 15 May 2012 22:50:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.235.79]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4G5nTGv012855 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 15 May 2012 22:49:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1337147385; i=@elandsys.com; bh=FencPqvHROKi3Rzu6m4FKP9m0E2EnkAlqhV9hSSQTKQ=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=axy588XKzlMnR4ASIlKtSpduLD7zQdikyUDWhG/jYX7kEb3AEu7We/j1NBopT7CpW AN+oast5ldmWDyfpCc98EEJ4V78CA1RMvoVVBhkOECvG1gHf1tY3bMuV0BOuPG7d8J uglFwSe+ZdHAgkYQbuHR97KOizgxi/Dvkt6C91eA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1337147385; i=@elandsys.com; bh=FencPqvHROKi3Rzu6m4FKP9m0E2EnkAlqhV9hSSQTKQ=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=bQ3kT/f2cc+IJ/1/WLbxRZtlQ9HVuJjlRYdviOqkvhFC5aJzYzlnk6s0XDfbOoHZn lbu+HoMQCDfNV5HPOIbQkddtdqUpYAkHQQeS/SjzEVYPhsH1KfRNh7PGehdKm/zMhP ET11jH9c/LE08kn/fhVcsw4RWcaBjkjfUm3QNXlg= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120515223226.0a52aa28@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 22:48:33 -0700 To: William Mills , "Vijay K. Gurbani" , Joseph Yee , Xiaodong Lee From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: [appsdir] Reminder for AppsDir assignment 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, 16 May 2012 05:50:12 -0000 Hello, [Cc to appsdir] Here's a reminder for assignments which were due on May 14 just in case it is needed: draft-ietf-abfab-gss-eap - William draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03 - Murray (we already talked about this) draft-ietf-ledbat-congestion-09 - Vijay draft-ietf-6man-lineid-04 - Joseph draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-18 - Xiaodong (due date was extended to May 21) draft-ietf-codec-opus-12 - Claudio (he already notified me about the delay) Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Wed May 16 21:18:38 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 69FD911E808E; Wed, 16 May 2012 21:18:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, 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 SNU1IszSMahU; Wed, 16 May 2012 21:18:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F3F311E8089; Wed, 16 May 2012 21:18:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.236.87]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4H4IK2U007296 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 16 May 2012 21:18:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1337228314; i=@elandsys.com; bh=KFqm3RcAoeduRdIQOhDFvkgdWTxZEAgyjB5V/0X7ymA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=kE+G+fPvTF4nwNoq2KiK049brNqTgHOMdyFWVDYMXID7lTCaCj5BDtvxNyotB0htP XOKxPuNnWoYaUyfIKUHagzSlqY70PdPmSLToaJgzZW9o/Kn+Gb9BEKIqCQVMkdT1xR RkUbQcfS0FSd4PRfODYer1iR5bLWsJWnbAGnMHaA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1337228314; i=@elandsys.com; bh=KFqm3RcAoeduRdIQOhDFvkgdWTxZEAgyjB5V/0X7ymA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=zHitrwl3lCz+6O3n1bwZ5sEEbTMl9XPcsnDPUVRQzyYGKN/4bmZjIX+bNG+3Eqj24 vPL5zasNk6xlvv6X3cb/im8qA9ejp7XHLJZwESN4T6dYfcvRYq9raAcQHxbmeR7b0c HiuDXOhQPcFEoLW5kmC3QpqLJFG7/Pj0S0wdlEPk= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120516203822.0add38b8@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 21:17:51 -0700 To: Sean Turner From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <4FB46FA6.6060005@stpeter.im> References: <20120516215321.9671.39664.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4FB46FA6.6060005@stpeter.im> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: mile@ietf.org, appsdir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [appsdir] [mile] Last Call: (Guidelines for Defining Extensions to IODEF) to Informational RFC 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, 17 May 2012 04:18:38 -0000 Hi Sean, At 20:25 16-05-2012, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >3. Given the many comments provided by Martin D=FCrst, mentioning his >AppsDir review in the Acknowledgements seems appropriate. I read Martin's review of=20 draft-ietf-mile-template-02. It was a thorough=20 review with recommendations on how to improve the draft. Regards, S. Moonesamy=20 From turners@ieca.com Thu May 17 04:15:52 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 BDF0E21F86A0 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 04:15:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, 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 71omBNoLDDAI for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 04:15:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gateway08.websitewelcome.com (gateway08.websitewelcome.com [69.56.170.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F95521F8644 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 04:15:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gateway08.websitewelcome.com (Postfix, from userid 5007) id C771967589387; Thu, 17 May 2012 06:15:51 -0500 (CDT) Received: from gator1743.hostgator.com (gator1743.hostgator.com [184.173.253.227]) by gateway08.websitewelcome.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCCAC67589357 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 06:15:51 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [71.191.10.205] (port=37974 helo=thunderfish.local) by gator1743.hostgator.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SUygR-0004gf-Bo; Thu, 17 May 2012 06:15:51 -0500 Message-ID: <4FB4DDE6.7060906@ieca.com> Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 07:15:50 -0400 From: Sean Turner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: S Moonesamy References: <20120516215321.9671.39664.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4FB46FA6.6060005@stpeter.im> <6.2.5.6.2.20120516203822.0add38b8@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120516203822.0add38b8@resistor.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gator1743.hostgator.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - ieca.com X-BWhitelist: no X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Source-Sender: pool-71-191-10-205.washdc.east.verizon.net (thunderfish.local) [71.191.10.205]:37974 X-Source-Auth: sean.turner@ieca.com X-Email-Count: 2 X-Source-Cap: ZG9tbWdyNDg7ZG9tbWdyNDg7Z2F0b3IxNzQzLmhvc3RnYXRvci5jb20= X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 17 May 2012 08:07:18 -0700 Cc: mile@ietf.org, appsdir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [appsdir] [mile] Last Call: (Guidelines for Defining Extensions to IODEF) to Informational RFC 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, 17 May 2012 11:15:52 -0000 On 5/17/12 12:17 AM, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hi Sean, > At 20:25 16-05-2012, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> 3. Given the many comments provided by Martin Dürst, mentioning his >> AppsDir review in the Acknowledgements seems appropriate. > > I read Martin's review of draft-ietf-mile-template-02. It was a thorough > review with recommendations on how to improve the draft. SM, Could you forward me the review. I don't seem to have it and I can't find it in the appsdir archive. Thanks, spt From stpeter@stpeter.im Thu May 17 09:24:25 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 E9BEA21F862B; Thu, 17 May 2012 09:24:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.543 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.543 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 siohKS-3dYcc; Thu, 17 May 2012 09:24:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96F0E21F85E3; Thu, 17 May 2012 09:24:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [64.101.72.115] (unknown [64.101.72.115]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 21BC14005A; Thu, 17 May 2012 10:40:06 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4FB52632.4060009@stpeter.im> Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 10:24:18 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sean Turner References: <20120516215321.9671.39664.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4FB46FA6.6060005@stpeter.im> <6.2.5.6.2.20120516203822.0add38b8@resistor.net> <4FB4DDE6.7060906@ieca.com> In-Reply-To: <4FB4DDE6.7060906@ieca.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: mile@ietf.org, appsdir@ietf.org, S Moonesamy Subject: Re: [appsdir] [mile] Last Call: (Guidelines for Defining Extensions to IODEF) to Informational RFC 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, 17 May 2012 16:24:26 -0000 On 5/17/12 5:15 AM, Sean Turner wrote: > On 5/17/12 12:17 AM, S Moonesamy wrote: >> Hi Sean, >> At 20:25 16-05-2012, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>> 3. Given the many comments provided by Martin Dürst, mentioning his >>> AppsDir review in the Acknowledgements seems appropriate. >> >> I read Martin's review of draft-ietf-mile-template-02. It was a thorough >> review with recommendations on how to improve the draft. > > SM, > > Could you forward me the review. I don't seem to have it and I can't > find it in the appsdir archive. That's because it was sent to the apps-discuss list before we established the appsdir list: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg04377.html Brian Trammel's reply is here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg04399.html Sorry about the confusion! Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ From sm@elandsys.com Thu May 17 11:16:37 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 A2D1B21F870E for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 11:16:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, 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 nhYJ4pbJts1t for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 11:16:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FB9121F86FF for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 11:16:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.236.87]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4HIGOtZ012949 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 11:16:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1337278595; i=@elandsys.com; bh=KvhH6xiahbRxSTO1QnoTlAU4Qc/yPpSHaWRkGur5tLY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=Qs8UufJQxoE6bSI8WcelwHIcFswJ5UR/RyKZt5K/QC37i89Ns+T0XIB4SIPwGguPM veWVWjnvdXpj5BC5tU2l1ZIN9JPe1O6uVOfcsntRpD7GY8urXv83Kx2Tk9k/BIpTKx RdEVoL5XkSIXkTDx3D8c3kvzYTfuPbu4f9TdAkDI= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1337278595; i=@elandsys.com; bh=KvhH6xiahbRxSTO1QnoTlAU4Qc/yPpSHaWRkGur5tLY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=vHlZJdWnwmjYNbS4ETFkzATfViocujlVwEx5Mh0ueyK3oT4fhwse8w48EGw6Yrm7u FOim8l3m/YY7vUKXcnM/9AcUktY1ulx+nh0jli2ckdlSucOOatXCEQxka/0I6YpdNK clSXyplnX7sjyObpPSI5xuGXLocNlTnHAHi2m6+A= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517111613.0b3d2158@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 11:16:24 -0700 To: appsdir@ietf.org From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [appsdir] Assignment to review draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-18 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, 17 May 2012 18:16:37 -0000 Hello, As a FYI, I am taking over the assignment to review draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-18 as the previous reviewer is unavailable. Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Thu May 17 12:21:01 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 C3B9F21F8720; Thu, 17 May 2012 12:21:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, 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 CpiWTHn2-G5y; Thu, 17 May 2012 12:20:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADDA421F86F8; Thu, 17 May 2012 12:20:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.236.87]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4HJKj0L016840 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 17 May 2012 12:20:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1337282457; i=@elandsys.com; bh=Luw8bdSKPPDVKGB4V25vaWha0/io/QIo0tE8ZZs8e10=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=wOZkgr4OPIaO9SvptCn7WjuYtvXLcwDM57/7Ja89b5THzCZ+EB/dx7eFUtpOPPyHD JL52EFZlTJiAjE9iDBEOJtuOc3ZgRXSQkQQjQbsofAmRVStF5hX7xE7UlyC+xkHxnr A7hn3bDIRwTZyK/v/vYuD+ZDCDOf9dLHwkE5rCh0= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1337282457; i=@elandsys.com; bh=Luw8bdSKPPDVKGB4V25vaWha0/io/QIo0tE8ZZs8e10=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=KueHGQdjkMDqyJR2uOBZjuuTTxr/NwxIvh/kT1Ne1+/bMRoSx+0OOboxuE8kJUnbn F4KjvW/B7WhQ/0gnLVMIYpuiRXB8okovDHVNEqllSxAnZ9zfQag5sv02JS+OQBhlL2 +JyC8t/QwG7psgZM3QsGXkjn2fTx+WTItkyAf6wU= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 11:58:07 -0700 To: appsdir@ietf.org From: S Moonesamy Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [appsdir] Mailing list to discuss about Applications Area Directorate 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, 17 May 2012 19:21:01 -0000 Hello, [Bcc to apps-discuss. Please follow up on appsdir@] The Applications Area Review Team has been posting reviews to apps-discuss@ since October 2009. The Applications Area Directorate continued the practice as the objective is to allow open discussion of the reviews. As a reminder, the comments in the reviews do not bear more weight than comments submitted by an individual during a Last Call. The directorate also perform early reviews, i.e. reviews before a last Call is issued, so that there is more time to address the issues. Apps-discuss@ is also used by APPSAWG. The work in that working group generates a significant amount of mail traffic. When combined with the APPSDIR-related traffic, it turns in a somewhat high volume of mail and it may hamper the work of APPSAWG. It was suggested to me that APPSDIR reviews should be discussed on a different mailing list. In my opinion, it is important that APPSDIR continues the practice of encouraging open discussion of the reviews. I would like to suggest that APPSDIR reviews be posted to ietf@ietf.org as from June 1, 2012. This is an administrative decision for the directorate to take. Feedback from apps-discuss@ will be taken into consideration. The Applications Area Directors, as usual, have the final say. Regards, S. Moonesamy From msk@cloudmark.com Thu May 17 12:27:41 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 74D3821F86F1 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 12:27:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.565 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.565 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 fXzrwk6pSFYu for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 12:27:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E136521F86CB for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 12:27:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.25]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id B7Tf1j0030ZaKgw017TfHk; Thu, 17 May 2012 12:27:40 -0700 X-CMAE-Match: 0 X-CMAE-Score: 0.00 X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=eMmRfQV1 c=1 sm=1 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:17 a=LvckAehuu68A:10 a=M57ZlA4YUCsA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=b6nfwRhkAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=1PngfIrdWKKaxju2r3UA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:117 Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::2524:76b6:a865:539c%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Thu, 17 May 2012 12:25:35 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "appsdir@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [appsdir] Mailing list to discuss about Applications Area Directorate reviews Thread-Index: AQHNNGI6KdaN/ISgd0qgxL1Wmpgk5JbOXEuQ Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 19:25:34 +0000 Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039281259AB@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@elandnews.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1337282860; bh=AVoo1EJOxQmY36e6hYVITKSj3S/F6QSIwVCLm16PH6s=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=ZxYw1PFQEsrDFOF8QFY9mnVfh3wsmSPBk82JUziREZg3zdjIoTg+PKaOXoA48skvG zfND4GmVYm+TXqAXLE2i1jMPRkAHnOb4m5w2xH9pGTm3yAcRYK+PwQJElD/IPY+dX5 bdc+dfA16byleSTaUtAH4Fr/QdEvc1h3BwVLqviw= Subject: Re: [appsdir] Mailing list to discuss about Applications Area Directorate 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, 17 May 2012 19:27:41 -0000 I appreciate the suggestion to de-clutter apps-discuss as much as possible. I suggest reviews be posted to appsdir@ietf.org for the sake of sharing amo= ng the team and archiving; to ietf@ietf.org for general dissemination; and = to the working group list (if applicable) and the draft-*@tools.ietf.org al= ias. Barry and/or Pete could comment on whether including iesg@ietf.org in= that list is appropriate. -MSK From stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie Thu May 17 12:28:50 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 CFF6421F87FC for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 12:28:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.383 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.383 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.216, 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 4xHlL1MSf4vC for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 12:28:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scss.tcd.ie (hermes.scss.tcd.ie [IPv6:2001:770:10:200:889f:cdff:fe8d:ccd2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6ABD21F87FF for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 12:28:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58A99153579; Thu, 17 May 2012 20:28:49 +0100 (IST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:in-reply-to:references :subject:mime-version:user-agent:from:date:message-id:received :received:x-virus-scanned; s=cs; t=1337282929; bh=LjcgN0o3sw0DaW 4QGFEh8mgCt9aDkwLOrhjHtm85Iz0=; b=yCnf4VZoFU9ojEpnQFGBbNJTM2nbkV 4v2cRgXI4E1eq/hP1GUcBEhA6QEllt3BvpLzIa1ZCEWcILy4MrpEqctujeY//K+c /rPm12N54zWB3jWhjEqyjRitM2GP2laBRz3jyrYuCSzKrDyZ05qDFq13BuFGHZ5a rg69L0SOCbnhtaFBSM53CRYZSpDtOJXHbgn61mJpoEr0UM4j3BtVSlrH+YF8MBFe p46BuUgv6o2fv4KaJqycGouJ6rWfudv+z9BocNmlVjvDJti5kCFaMglBu2xShVq9 W1gmDtYCqRik90cTOQRsh8Rs6IugoQaxpGRMj1/ty89zO3v6OihN5ZVg== X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie Received: from scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10027) with ESMTP id 35mO-MXX8PhD; Thu, 17 May 2012 20:28:49 +0100 (IST) Received: from [10.87.48.4] (unknown [86.44.70.59]) by smtp.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E4237171591; Thu, 17 May 2012 20:28:48 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <4FB5516F.6090504@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 20:28:47 +0100 From: Stephen Farrell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: S Moonesamy References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@elandnews.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 17 May 2012 12:51:06 -0700 Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [appsdir] [apps-discuss] Mailing list to discuss about Applications Area Directorate 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, 17 May 2012 19:28:50 -0000 You think that'll generate *less* traffic? I doubt it;-) And I suspect that most of the folks on apps-discuss who're involved in most of those discussions are also on ietf@ietf.org so very few people will see less mail and most will see more. I'd say if you're gonna do this, do it for a trial period only. Maybe June 1 - after IETF-84 and then see how its gone. S On 05/17/2012 07:58 PM, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hello, > > [Bcc to apps-discuss. Please follow up on appsdir@] > > The Applications Area Review Team has been posting reviews to > apps-discuss@ since October 2009. The Applications Area Directorate > continued the practice as the objective is to allow open discussion of > the reviews. As a reminder, the comments in the reviews do not bear > more weight than comments submitted by an individual during a Last > Call. The directorate also perform early reviews, i.e. reviews before a > last Call is issued, so that there is more time to address the issues. > > Apps-discuss@ is also used by APPSAWG. The work in that working group > generates a significant amount of mail traffic. When combined with the > APPSDIR-related traffic, it turns in a somewhat high volume of mail and > it may hamper the work of APPSAWG. > > It was suggested to me that APPSDIR reviews should be discussed on a > different mailing list. In my opinion, it is important that APPSDIR > continues the practice of encouraging open discussion of the reviews. I > would like to suggest that APPSDIR reviews be posted to ietf@ietf.org as > from June 1, 2012. This is an administrative decision for the > directorate to take. Feedback from apps-discuss@ will be taken into > consideration. The Applications Area Directors, as usual, have the > final say. > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy > > _______________________________________________ > apps-discuss mailing list > apps-discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From tony@att.com Thu May 17 13:08:13 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 C717F21F8649 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 13:08:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.311 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.288, 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 0sPZ8Sxr7Alo for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 13:08:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com [209.65.160.94]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E730321F85CF for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 13:08:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unknown [144.160.20.146] (EHLO mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.11.0-10) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id caa55bf4.0.248581.00-449.682677.nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Thu, 17 May 2012 20:08:12 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 4fb55aac6716d5c2-12b3aa54cba30ebde868befa8d61b15e50db1e13 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4HK8BUO005641 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 16:08:12 -0400 Received: from sflint04.pst.cso.att.com (sflint04.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.231]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4HK86Wr005485 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 16:08:09 -0400 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint04.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 16:07:49 -0400 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4HK7m5X023184 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 16:07:48 -0400 Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4HK7hkQ022985 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 16:07:43 -0400 Received: from [135.91.110.244] (ds135-91-110-244.dhcps.ugn.att.com[135.91.110.244]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20120517200413gw10060lave> (Authid: tony); Thu, 17 May 2012 20:04:13 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.91.110.244] Message-ID: <4FB55A8E.9040605@att.com> Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 16:07:42 -0400 From: Tony Hansen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: S Moonesamy References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@elandnews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-RSA-Action: allow X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.20.146] X-AnalysisOut: [v=1.0 c=1 a=p4QNoMogDYAA:10 a=4JAii899aesA:10 a=QVDevuk776] X-AnalysisOut: [4A:10 a=ofMgfj31e3cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:1] X-AnalysisOut: [0 a=Qs8R1XBwmid1qBFB/a8mmA==:17 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=Nx-IoPm] X-AnalysisOut: [duaAtA5WTLYUA:9 a=r7RLXm-J1PpyWH_MVd4A:7 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10] X-AnalysisOut: [ a=lZB815dzVvQA:10] Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [appsdir] [apps-discuss] Mailing list to discuss about Applications Area Directorate 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, 17 May 2012 20:08:14 -0000 I think this will increase the overall mail flow rather than decrease it. -1 Tony Hansen On 5/17/2012 2:58 PM, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hello, > > [Bcc to apps-discuss. Please follow up on appsdir@] > > The Applications Area Review Team has been posting reviews to > apps-discuss@ since October 2009. The Applications Area Directorate > continued the practice as the objective is to allow open discussion of > the reviews. As a reminder, the comments in the reviews do not bear > more weight than comments submitted by an individual during a Last > Call. The directorate also perform early reviews, i.e. reviews before > a last Call is issued, so that there is more time to address the issues. > > Apps-discuss@ is also used by APPSAWG. The work in that working group > generates a significant amount of mail traffic. When combined with > the APPSDIR-related traffic, it turns in a somewhat high volume of > mail and it may hamper the work of APPSAWG. > > It was suggested to me that APPSDIR reviews should be discussed on a > different mailing list. In my opinion, it is important that APPSDIR > continues the practice of encouraging open discussion of the reviews. > I would like to suggest that APPSDIR reviews be posted to > ietf@ietf.org as from June 1, 2012. This is an administrative > decision for the directorate to take. Feedback from apps-discuss@ > will be taken into consideration. The Applications Area Directors, as > usual, have the final say. > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy From sm@elandsys.com Thu May 17 13:14:32 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 06B3121F876A for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 13:14:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, 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 wRbW+Y95kT2K for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 13:14:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 498E321F8711 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 13:14:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.236.87]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4HKEDfR013257 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 13:14:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1337285669; i=@elandsys.com; bh=doCGZdRPWJTI10xOr5lDD4xgcqL/a2YpBxxs0jqi9to=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc; b=aex/UrrkOpMsRMHwXVkeKU/PMffgKuN9mxV/FuF8PWULa0qWVJIDsEiOxpBqjZe+U UX5GmKJJdXl0Lj2C6h2TafsHUfsqJVg2DwBlMztd+TkUcnSutW+qvNa+yrrm+xLBO8 w26DtP7voKGLDq/YL75EHi6CVYSu7FoFmVZD5I64= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1337285669; i=@elandsys.com; bh=doCGZdRPWJTI10xOr5lDD4xgcqL/a2YpBxxs0jqi9to=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc; b=qmBXiFYGfYTPqmj3Cv80TcI0TIj2nkgSdwPDMNDKJcOijEC/l0kHDyfbv0yOj0xzo Bkhlqp4SVFksMsRrm53ESDgtdV5HTRUlnDtLVi5suxEhKVdyPXI2a9E2viz4ZoZ9C3 D7PgaZZVfUvIgKgh8Pd3lSdSlDlMhxgygVi6/WuQ= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517125258.0a006650@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 13:07:20 -0700 To: appsdir@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039281259AB@exch-mbx901.corp.cl oudmark.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@elandnews.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039281259AB@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [appsdir] Mailing list to discuss about Applications Area Directorate 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, 17 May 2012 20:14:32 -0000 Hi Murray, At 12:25 17-05-2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >I suggest reviews be posted to appsdir@ietf.org for the sake of >sharing among the team and archiving; to ietf@ietf.org for general >dissemination; and to the working group list (if applicable) and the >draft-*@tools.ietf.org alias. Barry and/or Pete could comment on >whether including iesg@ietf.org in that list is appropriate. I have been trying to reduce the number of emails to appsdir@ so that people can keep up with my administrative clutter. We can always discuss some APPSDIR reviews on this mailing list if anyone brings up the topic in here. We already send the reviews to the draft-*@tools.ietf.org alias (which is expanded to the email address of the authors). It's going to be a little more work identify the reviews on ietf@ (your point about archiving). In general, we copy the review to iesg@ if a Last Call has been issued or if there is anything significant. I'll ask whether we should drop that to avoid duplication. Best regards, -sm From sm@elandsys.com Thu May 17 13:14:32 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 14FBD21F8711 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 13:14:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.581 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.581 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.018, 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 zaUPkydseI11 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 13:14:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4993E21F8734 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 13:14:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.236.87]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4HKEDfP013257 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 17 May 2012 13:14:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1337285666; i=@elandsys.com; bh=SEQi3MX27KM6qAhDqv5TmdJcjZeltJEqtRUvofoN54Y=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=1VbH7yQCuC8W9E74r7z69oiG70RPrMIhx7vllN+pBk1B9oC4QmE9k5Q/lFl7xlYtC 4BwgjbXZ59wAly/URTmOiaga6/RWFihocrsNo7K6nr+ZbXUzDAj24buP7VDKnoVynW 7onXI5ai7EPx/MNQXmUhHaelQXVPCccwyYi2yqns= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1337285666; i=@elandsys.com; bh=SEQi3MX27KM6qAhDqv5TmdJcjZeltJEqtRUvofoN54Y=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=AieQmJeEM0oF7FywTdiad+0RGKakwmHKUsVB/gAZUrnuV9yh20aATQgulOuH5x1OY VUpqlhoJGrbbjgeWeiZIBjHLuxSjb7fMctAuqb4g08Jz3oCHsIs+uR/O1+fFdNxvmr m8NgXdiXxQg1aLKZ6yqwvQaVBEFpcai6ZBjuuYdQ= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517123335.0a6118f8@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 12:50:49 -0700 To: Stephen Farrell From: SM In-Reply-To: <4FB5516F.6090504@cs.tcd.ie> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@elandnews.com> <4FB5516F.6090504@cs.tcd.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [appsdir] [apps-discuss] Mailing list to discuss about Applications Area Directorate 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, 17 May 2012 20:14:32 -0000 Hi Stephen, At 12:28 17-05-2012, Stephen Farrell wrote: >You think that'll generate *less* traffic? I doubt it;-) I think that it will generate less traffic for apps-discuss@. Now, if you ask me about ietf@, I'll say that I am not the moderator of that mailing list. :-) FWIW, APPSDIR does around 15 reviews a month. I expect around 50 more emails to the list if the reviews are not controversial. I saw a Secdir review by Stephen Hanna which was really good. I would not have read it if it wasn't posted to ietf@. >And I suspect that most of the folks on apps-discuss >who're involved in most of those discussions are also >on ietf@ietf.org so very few people will see less >mail and most will see more. Yes. It less cumbersome in terms of moderation though as it is difficult to say that topic X does not belong to apps-discuss@. >I'd say if you're gonna do this, do it for a trial >period only. Maybe June 1 - after IETF-84 and then see >how its gone. That's a good idea. Best regards, -sm From msk@cloudmark.com Thu May 17 14:21:53 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 A918321F86FC for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 14:21:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.565 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.565 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 S9zNdsN6+EoK for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 14:21:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C20EE21F86FA for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 14:21:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.25]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id B9Mo1j0010ZaKgw019Mop2; Thu, 17 May 2012 14:21:48 -0700 X-CMAE-Match: 0 X-CMAE-Score: 0.00 X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=MOXiabll c=1 sm=1 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:17 a=LvckAehuu68A:10 a=M57ZlA4YUCsA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=b6nfwRhkAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=g6hBq5jmvXt6IZw6Wt8A:9 a=NJpalXw6NKVvO-m2-EIA:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=aZjl15W_lYxkN-cK:21 a=k55i_-YPOxBfqznu:21 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:117 Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::2524:76b6:a865:539c%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Thu, 17 May 2012 14:19:28 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "appsdir@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [appsdir] Mailing list to discuss about Applications Area Directorate reviews Thread-Index: AQHNNGiqKdaN/ISgd0qgxL1Wmpgk5JbOe+lg Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 21:19:28 +0000 Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928125B7F@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@elandnews.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039281259AB@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120517125258.0a006650@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517125258.0a006650@elandnews.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1337289708; bh=iBu0pMHViEdzXHFclhKrwO+z5Almu6yTUr15Pdf/iaA=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=qUo7RCWB2QpOAdfvNwHKpMgwcyxrPmR2AjSV2PCy3Y0+Qhf/rTWdcjz/x/ZaT85T3 rIUW1psoAIFCIlHw5HFe1NMe75bMIK1DeLkf1Tfvfm+++L4t6h8JlYjjJpqTtC64Ws YWqwU3dLW9T0viEG9zjUbiUqDCyyTd6olUemNBDw= Subject: Re: [appsdir] Mailing list to discuss about Applications Area Directorate 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, 17 May 2012 21:21:53 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: appsdir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:appsdir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behal= f Of SM > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 1:07 PM > To: appsdir@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [appsdir] Mailing list to discuss about Applications Area Di= rectorate reviews >=20 > I have been trying to reduce the number of emails to appsdir@ so that > people can keep up with my administrative clutter. We can always > discuss some APPSDIR reviews on this mailing list if anyone brings up > the topic in here. We already send the reviews to the draft- > *@tools.ietf.org alias (which is expanded to the email address of the > authors). It's going to be a little more work identify the reviews on > ietf@ (your point about archiving). I can spot appsdir reviews on ietf@ just fine right now because they all st= art with "Applications Area Directorate Review of" or "AppsDir Review of" o= r something like that. I guess my vision of this list is that it's used to make/discuss assignment= s, receive the reviews so the team can see them all as they come in, and di= scuss operation of the directorate itself. Those collectively don't seem t= o be too voluminous to me. > In general, we copy the review to iesg@ if a Last Call has been issued > or if there is anything significant. I'll ask whether we should drop > that to avoid duplication. That seems reasonable. Or perhaps just app-ads@tools.ietf.org, though they= 're on this list anyway. -MSK From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Thu May 17 13:25:30 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 6BDF921F87EF for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 13:25:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.619 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.020, 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 ehEFU19AE+0c for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 13:25:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3A8121F87A2 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 13:25:29 -0700 (PDT) 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 D10411ECB41C; Thu, 17 May 2012 20:25:28 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 16:25:27 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: S Moonesamy Message-ID: <20120517202511.GU28307@mail.yitter.info> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@elandnews.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@elandnews.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 17 May 2012 14:22:52 -0700 Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [appsdir] [apps-discuss] Mailing list to discuss about Applications Area Directorate 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, 17 May 2012 20:25:30 -0000 On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 11:58:07AM -0700, S Moonesamy wrote: > It was suggested to me that APPSDIR reviews should be discussed on a > different mailing list. I am mystified by the desire around the IETF these days to split every topic of broad interest and every discussion aimed at wide review off onto its own mailing list. The _whole point_ of having things like area-wide mailing lists is so that things of importance to the entire area can be discussed there. If these APPSDIR reviews aren't really appropriate for the entire area, why is APPSDIR doing the review at all (except to say, "This has no implications for the APPSDIR")? The reasoning always seems to be traffic to the mailing list. But if the point of the IETF is wide review, then largeish amounts of mailing list traffic are a cost of doing business. So, FWIW, I am not in favour of this suggestion. Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From mnot@mnot.net Thu May 17 17:10:54 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 8C09321F86AA for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 17:10:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.637 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.637 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.038, 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 9SHxnSyy2UsJ for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 17:10:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80CF021F86C6 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 17:10:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mnot-mini.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.21.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DAA0E22E1EB; Thu, 17 May 2012 20:10:37 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Mark Nottingham In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@elandnews.com> Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 10:10:34 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@elandnews.com> To: S Moonesamy X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [appsdir] Mailing list to discuss about Applications Area Directorate 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: Fri, 18 May 2012 00:10:54 -0000 I'm +1 in principle - it may end up with some people with more bits of = mail in their boxes, but the apps-discuss list is overloaded, and it's = getting to the point where it's requires a *lot* of dedication to keep = up with it. That may work for a few highly active people, but not for = the community as a whole. Now, I'm not sure that using ietf@ -- which has a broader audience as = well as a volume problem of its own (so much so that I don't pay = attention to it regularly, but that's a different discussion) -- is the = right solution. It may be that using a different list (e.g., appsdir@) = would be better.=20 Cheers, On 18/05/2012, at 4:58 AM, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hello, >=20 > [Bcc to apps-discuss. Please follow up on appsdir@] >=20 > The Applications Area Review Team has been posting reviews to = apps-discuss@ since October 2009. The Applications Area Directorate = continued the practice as the objective is to allow open discussion of = the reviews. As a reminder, the comments in the reviews do not bear = more weight than comments submitted by an individual during a Last Call. = The directorate also perform early reviews, i.e. reviews before a last = Call is issued, so that there is more time to address the issues. >=20 > Apps-discuss@ is also used by APPSAWG. The work in that working group = generates a significant amount of mail traffic. When combined with the = APPSDIR-related traffic, it turns in a somewhat high volume of mail and = it may hamper the work of APPSAWG. >=20 > It was suggested to me that APPSDIR reviews should be discussed on a = different mailing list. In my opinion, it is important that APPSDIR = continues the practice of encouraging open discussion of the reviews. I = would like to suggest that APPSDIR reviews be posted to ietf@ietf.org as = from June 1, 2012. This is an administrative decision for the = directorate to take. Feedback from apps-discuss@ will be taken into = consideration. The Applications Area Directors, as usual, have the = final say. >=20 > Regards, > S. Moonesamy >=20 > _______________________________________________ > appsdir mailing list > appsdir@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/appsdir -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ From barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Thu May 17 17:14:27 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 B6ED221F86B7 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 17:14:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.972 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.972 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.005, 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 lol+OU5BVrJa for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 17:14:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB4C821F864C for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 17:14:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lbbgo11 with SMTP id go11so1950714lbb.31 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 17:14:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=4JSpwXfiUME3u1J6B0UMyh08GnKMDuXF6GGGUmu7SaU=; b=H3Ujy1yU2xHEVXe81ZL1UrBbWxdRfLKZjMG+aBwTA66s8d9PSl5ieNB9vF+dY3EHZ1 EaAQIo+lDaK6WNr9pGQtNwKug0W9SOGAd4/UpWSg52HcLmZE6UYq0bKY3f4KHT0LcUXg Q/cF7N+QxAEWL5kqx3x9UKDTBjIYETn1tt7wocHbb0lRkukA9KygkZJ5jK6nzNzFiXpV wXw9BagIAZynICcIsRVtbYP6jIQg9J5QWosTgjHWVXU609SyhA1X/U2FKYGkx1WhzI3U Dog/Te75vjrHC5emvQd6CBYRU1BpoKW0Jih0IA+erMXcSil15ejP6X0YIOiZQAuAfMM4 khQg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.32.33 with SMTP id f1mr4013885lbi.54.1337300065628; Thu, 17 May 2012 17:14:25 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.7.7 with HTTP; Thu, 17 May 2012 17:14:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@elandnews.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@elandnews.com> Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 20:14:25 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 0kjWAnVVr38TpAbtMDQ0Talx-aA Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: S Moonesamy Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [appsdir] Mailing list to discuss about Applications Area Directorate 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: Fri, 18 May 2012 00:14:27 -0000 Short answer: I am very much against the idea of moving apps-related discussions off of apps-discuss. Longer answer: I haven't talked with Pete about this, so these are just my own thoughts. Apps-discuss was set up for general apps-related discussions, and became the place to discuss Apps Review Team, now Apps Directorate, reviews. I'm the one who's responsible for the use of apps-discuss as the AppsAWG mailing list as well, and I did that because I think it's important to keep as much of the area-related discussion in the same place, on one list, so more people are likely to be there for it. The more we split the discussions up, the more likely it is that people will pick and choose, won't subscribe to all of them, and will miss things. We'll end up with some combination of (1) a bunch of lists, none of which have all the right people, and (2) a lot of cross-posting to more than one of the lists. That serves no one. I'm also responsible for having suggested the current distribution list for AppDir reviews, which is - apps-review@ietf.org - draft-xx-yy-zz@tools.ietf.org - iesg@ietf.org if these are last call comments or the discussion is during IESG Evaluation - the WG mailing list if it's a working group document and the review calls out things of significance I like that distribution, and I'd rather keep it that way. That said, I encourage people to remove the IESG list if the discussion of a review starts to go off into different directions (as the DANE discussion did). Use judgment here. I do NOT think that the volume of messages is a "problem". As Andrew says, when an interested community has to review a bunch of things, the mailing list traffic that generates is necessary traffic. There are lots of email programs out there that help one deal with relatively high volume lists -- use filtering and threading, and stay sane. If we try to stop people from missing what they ought to be seeing by reducing the volume, we will make them miss what they ought to be seeing by eliminating it, or by moving it somewhere they're not looking. Barry From stpeter@stpeter.im Thu May 17 19:23:49 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 13E6E21F8762 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 19:23:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.555 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.555 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.044, 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 MAorhlyza5jF for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 19:23:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 678F021F875E for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 19:23:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.9] (unknown [216.17.175.160]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7B34A4005A; Thu, 17 May 2012 20:39:35 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4FB5B2AE.9040609@stpeter.im> Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 20:23:42 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Barry Leiba References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: appsdir@ietf.org, S Moonesamy Subject: Re: [appsdir] Mailing list to discuss about Applications Area Directorate 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: Fri, 18 May 2012 02:23:49 -0000 On 5/17/12 6:14 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: > Short answer: I am very much against the idea of moving apps-related > discussions off of apps-discuss. I agree with Barry: I see no reason to move discussion of reviews off the apps-discuss list. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ From tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org Thu May 17 19:50:05 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 F182121F87E7 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 19:50:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -96.74 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.74 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.037, 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 hLYbpKSm2r7T for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 19:50:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lvps83-169-7-107.dedicated.hosteurope.de (www.gondrom.org [83.169.7.107]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9672421F87E6 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 19:50:04 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gondrom.org; b=NmUkFCUCQ6/Sl+/Co4cMmn1RtDOIyaNvlGoCnWBDpd0Srb1Bem3PPKzEjNez2/uVbYta0O2oJcWyFA1xTe1bcS8T9tdxIeXHWIQprMGE5YrnrFTRy7Q2B7MI0F7lz8ra; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type; Received: (qmail 21639 invoked from network); 18 May 2012 04:50:01 +0200 Received: from n2028211917.imsbiz.com (HELO ?10.65.1.159?) (202.82.119.17) by www.gondrom.org with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 18 May 2012 04:50:01 +0200 Message-ID: <4FB5B8D4.3030900@gondrom.org> Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 10:49:56 +0800 From: Tobias Gondrom User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: stpeter@stpeter.im References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@elandnews.com> <4FB5B2AE.9040609@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <4FB5B2AE.9040609@stpeter.im> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040404070400000202000605" Cc: barryleiba@computer.org, appsdir@ietf.org, sm+ietf@elandsys.com Subject: Re: [appsdir] Mailing list to discuss about Applications Area Directorate 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: Fri, 18 May 2012 02:50:06 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040404070400000202000605 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 18/05/12 10:23, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 5/17/12 6:14 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: >> Short answer: I am very much against the idea of moving apps-related >> discussions off of apps-discuss. > I agree with Barry: I see no reason to move discussion of reviews off > the apps-discuss list. > > Peter > I agree with Peter and Barry. Best regards, Tobias Ps.: on a note: like we do at sec-dir, depending on the judgement of the reviewer, for last call reviews of wider impact or that require broader attention it can make sense to also add ietf to the recipients on an individual case basis. --------------040404070400000202000605 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 18/05/12 10:23, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: 
On 5/17/12 6:14 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:

Short answer: I am very much against the idea of moving apps-related
discussions off of apps-discuss.

I agree with Barry: I see no reason to move discussion of reviews off
the apps-discuss list.

Peter

I agree with Peter and Barry.
Best regards, Tobias

Ps.: on a note: like we do at sec-dir, depending on the judgement of the reviewer, for last call reviews of wider impact or that require broader attention it can make sense to also add ietf to the recipients on an individual case basis.

--------------040404070400000202000605-- From alexey.melnikov@isode.com Thu May 17 20:39:38 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 3B15421F8684 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 20:39:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.203 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, 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 NpqL5b35pB6q for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 20:39:37 -0700 (PDT) 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 6EA6E21F8674 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 20:39:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1337312374; d=isode.com; s=selector; i=@isode.com; bh=C+nhNO6sFPVI2kXIf5DsCyVlxinkZYiTwZx1fjObv6Q=; 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=fxDVeYtOPzZGVgK5zlZQPaufhBAoVOQYyIU4xgYIhqdCExBHhbceZcxdMm/iXMMc+FD0UK Lwyd9X2NloLwBZ3cyJHsPMFa7MkpKYzBK1WIoCRMgP8+Sc2/H3WyI8/lETP8zpQzY/Myoj dhk5diIHo0MRYUM+u/PxAyNg8ew2Mgg=; Received: from [10.0.0.134] (173-164-130-65-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.164.130.65]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id ; Fri, 18 May 2012 04:39:34 +0100 References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@elandnews.com> <4FB5B2AE.9040609@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <4FB5B2AE.9040609@stpeter.im> Message-Id: <772B69FD-3552-4C80-B256-A109A6A589D5@isode.com> X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9B206) From: Alexey Melnikov Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 20:39:30 -0700 To: Peter Saint-Andre , S Moonesamy , Barry Leiba MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "appsdir@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [appsdir] Mailing list to discuss about Applications Area Directorate 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: Fri, 18 May 2012 03:39:38 -0000 On 17 May 2012, at 19:23, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 5/17/12 6:14 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: >> Short answer: I am very much against the idea of moving apps-related >> discussions off of apps-discuss. >=20 > I agree with Barry: I see no reason to move discussion of reviews off > the apps-discuss list. My preferences: 1) don't move AppsDir reviews from apps-discuss (+1 to Barry/Peter) 2) if AppsDir discussions move, then I don't think ietf@ is the right place,= due to the level of noise/traffic there. Regards, Alexey From alexey.melnikov@isode.com Thu May 17 20:44:41 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 BB2F621F872D for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 20:44:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.203 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, 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 ZfruPUjTtkCD for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 20:44:41 -0700 (PDT) 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 E2A0021F873E for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 20:44:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1337312680; d=isode.com; s=selector; i=@isode.com; bh=W6Epj9QsgqXMOuxgMV1svOzIwjbaSNoIzBANvp67QWU=; 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=VeB9JdEw/oP7zIjubeZNhKm6JQbP5NcR8ryMaeXBIPWPY+ceRsFB9VDkw9eslYrri5EVZk csTEFrEmXtjybeuZsRUyrfZJ4Oi9hZ+XVeQbup5GUZUnRr6sXuIkTS372tRsRnI+9G9J3W wRrUkVDS8trS/CKvvZ28LAY4ltTw010=; Received: from [10.0.0.134] (173-164-130-65-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.164.130.65]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id ; Fri, 18 May 2012 04:44:39 +0100 References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@elandnews.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039281259AB@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120517125258.0a006650@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517125258.0a006650@elandnews.com> Message-Id: <7CEDBEF4-428B-4AB0-9F88-F69D656383D9@isode.com> X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9B206) From: Alexey Melnikov Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 20:44:36 -0700 To: SM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "appsdir@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [appsdir] Mailing list to discuss about Applications Area Directorate 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: Fri, 18 May 2012 03:44:41 -0000 Hi SM, On 17 May 2012, at 13:07, SM wrote: > Hi Murray, > At 12:25 17-05-2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> I suggest reviews be posted to appsdir@ietf.org for the sake of sharing a= mong the team and archiving; to ietf@ietf.org for general dissemination; and= to the working group list (if applicable) and the draft-*@tools.ietf.org al= ias. Barry and/or Pete could comment on whether including iesg@ietf.org in t= hat list is appropriate. >=20 > I have been trying to reduce the number of emails to appsdir@ so that peop= le can keep up with my administrative clutter. We can always discuss some A= PPSDIR reviews on this mailing list if anyone brings up the topic in here. W= e already send the reviews to the draft-*@tools.ietf.org alias (which is exp= anded to the email address of the authors). It's going to be a little more w= ork identify the reviews on ietf@ (your point about archiving). >=20 > In general, we copy the review to iesg@ if a Last Call has been issued or i= f there is anything significant. I'll ask whether we should drop that to av= oid duplication. When I was on IESG I actually appreciated seeing directorate reviews. I also= picked up good points from such reviews to use in Discusses, even if they w= eren't from AppsDir reviews. So I think CCing iesg@ is important.= From duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp Thu May 17 23:37:29 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 9730C21F8550 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 23:37:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.311 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.479, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 dRdIiib3j5Zv for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 23:37:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2B7021F854D for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 23:37:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id q4I6bEdV004462 for ; Fri, 18 May 2012 15:37:14 +0900 Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 7db4_aea1_e78b4326_a0b3_11e1_8788_001d096c5782; Fri, 18 May 2012 15:37:13 +0900 Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.1]:59460) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id for from ; Fri, 18 May 2012 15:37:17 +0900 Message-ID: <4FB5EE0F.3050905@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 15:37:03 +0900 From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Nottingham References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: appsdir@ietf.org, S Moonesamy Subject: Re: [appsdir] Mailing list to discuss about Applications Area Directorate 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: Fri, 18 May 2012 06:37:29 -0000 On 2012/05/18 9:10, Mark Nottingham wrote: > I'm +1 in principle - it may end up with some people with more bits of mail in their boxes, but the apps-discuss list is overloaded, and it's getting to the point where it's requires a *lot* of dedication to keep up with it. That may work for a few highly active people, but not for the community as a whole. I'm with Barry, Peter,... on this. I agree with Mark that apps-discuss has too much traffic, but splitting it up I'm afraid will just lead to two bloated mailing lists instead of one, with even more mail :-(. Regards, Martin. > Now, I'm not sure that using ietf@ -- which has a broader audience as well as a volume problem of its own (so much so that I don't pay attention to it regularly, but that's a different discussion) -- is the right solution. It may be that using a different list (e.g., appsdir@) would be better. > > Cheers, > > > > On 18/05/2012, at 4:58 AM, S Moonesamy wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> [Bcc to apps-discuss. Please follow up on appsdir@] >> >> The Applications Area Review Team has been posting reviews to apps-discuss@ since October 2009. The Applications Area Directorate continued the practice as the objective is to allow open discussion of the reviews. As a reminder, the comments in the reviews do not bear more weight than comments submitted by an individual during a Last Call. The directorate also perform early reviews, i.e. reviews before a last Call is issued, so that there is more time to address the issues. >> >> Apps-discuss@ is also used by APPSAWG. The work in that working group generates a significant amount of mail traffic. When combined with the APPSDIR-related traffic, it turns in a somewhat high volume of mail and it may hamper the work of APPSAWG. >> >> It was suggested to me that APPSDIR reviews should be discussed on a different mailing list. In my opinion, it is important that APPSDIR continues the practice of encouraging open discussion of the reviews. I would like to suggest that APPSDIR reviews be posted to ietf@ietf.org as from June 1, 2012. This is an administrative decision for the directorate to take. Feedback from apps-discuss@ will be taken into consideration. The Applications Area Directors, as usual, have the final say. >> >> Regards, >> S. Moonesamy >> >> _______________________________________________ >> appsdir mailing list >> appsdir@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/appsdir > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > appsdir mailing list > appsdir@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/appsdir > From Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it Fri May 18 01:26:04 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 B2FCD21F8687 for ; Fri, 18 May 2012 01:26:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.57 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.029, 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 G5FkME4zssZM for ; Fri, 18 May 2012 01:26:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cyrus.dir.garr.it (cyrus.dir.garr.it [IPv6:2001:760:0:158::29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BABF021F8685 for ; Fri, 18 May 2012 01:26:03 -0700 (PDT) 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 q4I8PbPS011733 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 18 May 2012 10:25:38 +0200 (CEST) X-DomainKeys: Sendmail DomainKeys Filter v1.0.2 cyrus.dir.garr.it q4I8PbPS011733 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=garr.it; c=simple; q=dns; b=s7DRhEznddyA8gS3qJ4K+u242lZ6NEdXsHyGOFbA75SSa1JWSyLGAT75hTnmtkVhB QeNzqY8pzR4YaZPzhz2YVr9xJEtVkfYe30I5Hp69eBlhRY9LF8Be9ii02YN1RQIxCa4 vsaRRUmlhFca6kibp1HuLZK4hwiXwWQ89wToLM4= Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 10:25:37 +0200 (CEST) From: Claudio Allocchio X-X-Sender: claudio@mac-allocchio3.elettra.trieste.it To: Alexey Melnikov In-Reply-To: <772B69FD-3552-4C80-B256-A109A6A589D5@isode.com> Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@elandnews.com> <4FB5B2AE.9040609@stpeter.im> <772B69FD-3552-4C80-B256-A109A6A589D5@isode.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (OSX 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: Barry Leiba , "appsdir@ietf.org" , S Moonesamy , Peter Saint-Andre Subject: Re: [appsdir] Mailing list to discuss about Applications Area Directorate 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: Fri, 18 May 2012 08:26:04 -0000 On Thu, 17 May 2012, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > On 17 May 2012, at 19:23, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > >> On 5/17/12 6:14 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: >>> Short answer: I am very much against the idea of moving apps-related >>> discussions off of apps-discuss. >> >> I agree with Barry: I see no reason to move discussion of reviews off >> the apps-discuss list. the fact that we have lots of emails on apps-discuss if because we do a lot of work... :-) and +1, there is NO valid reason to move it from apps-discuss to ietf: it will become worst. > My preferences: > 1) don't move AppsDir reviews from apps-discuss (+1 to Barry/Peter) > 2) if AppsDir discussions move, then I don't think ietf@ is the right place, due to the level of noise/traffic there. same for me. > > Regards, > Alexey > > _______________________________________________ > 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 john-ietf@jck.com Sat May 19 11:54:58 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 72CBC21F84A6 for ; Sat, 19 May 2012 11:54:58 -0700 (PDT) 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 BqGLbQCrv3Lv for ; Sat, 19 May 2012 11:54:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E30921F8499 for ; Sat, 19 May 2012 11:54:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [198.252.137.7] (helo=PST.JCK.COM) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1SVoiI-000Il3-OI; Sat, 19 May 2012 14:49:14 -0400 Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 14:54:51 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: S Moonesamy , appsdir@ietf.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@elandnews.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@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 Subject: Re: [appsdir] Mailing list to discuss about Applications Area Directorate 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: Sat, 19 May 2012 18:54:58 -0000 --On Thursday, May 17, 2012 11:58 -0700 S Moonesamy wrote: > Hello, > > [Bcc to apps-discuss. Please follow up on appsdir@] > > The Applications Area Review Team has been posting reviews to > apps-discuss@ since October 2009. The Applications Area > Directorate continued the practice as the objective is to > allow open discussion of the reviews. As a reminder, the > comments in the reviews do not bear more weight than comments > submitted by an individual during a Last Call. The > directorate also perform early reviews, i.e. reviews before a > last Call is issued, so that there is more time to address the > issues. >... FWIW, +1. I've been overwhelmed by the traffic level that results from mixing the reviews, active discussions of documents accepted as WG topics, and semi-random "I'd like the AppsArea to discuss my latest plan for making Vern's list [1] or its web equivalent" notes and discussion threads and sometimes just find myself deferring looking at the list for days, then giving up and deleting everything on the theory that it is OBE. At least for those of us with limited time, Barry's notion that we should "keep as much of the area-related discussion in the same place, on one list" works well as long as everyone doing work in the Area has unlimited time for reading a large, and seemingly-growing, amount of traffic. Unless I'm the only one who lacks unlimited time for IETF work and who tries to follow IETF-related efforts other than the AppsArea, for the rest of us "everything on one list" turns into a three-way choice among: -- trying to filter the list by subject/topic, risking missing important things because Subject lines are often not helpful. -- trying to filter the list in other ways (e.g., read only a few days a week and discard everything else), again risking missing something important. -- conclude that none of it is really important enough to justify the cost of the filtering and either unsubscribe or divert list traffic to what turns out to be the equivalent of /dev/null The assumption that, by putting as much traffic as possible onto a single list, everyone who is interested in any aspect of that list will read it is one of the several things that drives IETF ever closer to unintentionally replicating the experience of SDOs we criticize for having leadership in the development and approval processes in the hands of people whose jobs are standardization, not protocol design, development, implementation, and deployment [2]. I am not criticizing those who manage to do standardization jobs but who also have a strong history in design and implementation of real products, but I think there is a tendency to forgot those who need to squeeze IETF work in despite its having lower institutional priority that other work. That particular tendency is potentially very destructive for the IETF and the IETF way of doing things and, IMO, we need to be vigilant about it. john [1] http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html [2] Not a concept I made up. Chapter 16 of Marshall Rose's _The Open Book_ contains a rather nice 1990 explanation of the problem. I sometimes fear that much of what we have learned in 22 years is how to become the problem. From barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Sat May 19 14:26:55 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 8B04F21F84E4 for ; Sat, 19 May 2012 14:26:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.538 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.538 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.439, 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 N9ImWVC-lPwM for ; Sat, 19 May 2012 14:26:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FD9521F84D9 for ; Sat, 19 May 2012 14:26:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lbbgo11 with SMTP id go11so3184909lbb.31 for ; Sat, 19 May 2012 14:26:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; 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=NDMw6lOD0/3XhUB252chss8q+MpqTrPtnC8t/p9BDjc=; b=msM0HsWssHYFoSzT+HuxElXwsvUrR9WJtGROgxxrbyx29kF6GHm3Kl26yp0qdNBPUX NcDCqIm5q0SGiiARrZxMUpiSndhgI5gLjem0Ef2vjeNifw6xt1+H8BLqv8fjaF7zBNPy U9KRqSuHvrs1EwcZNO4YxDkbZIQE92ysjADu52bf0YFDJbVNDNo2fAioFT08IcJDN2ud zwKpgHYfMeBogDROrPeqQfxkHIasISMjWiD754Ye7z7zyl4XL9FT1F+DgIrMXLowqorX yHYHyDQzJ9GOGHxRylzwbNYyZ/Qrk9/tav24Uur7lAEmFKBOadhhphgia2eaSOww7PzA lHaA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.105.173 with SMTP id gn13mr15035194lab.20.1337462813528; Sat, 19 May 2012 14:26:53 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.7.7 with HTTP; Sat, 19 May 2012 14:26:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@elandnews.com> Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 17:26:53 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 5JJRnQ0SmzQ6unht_NNsAMqeKmI Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: John C Klensin Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: appsdir@ietf.org, S Moonesamy Subject: Re: [appsdir] Mailing list to discuss about Applications Area Directorate 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: Sat, 19 May 2012 21:26:55 -0000 > FWIW, +1. =A0I've been overwhelmed by the traffic level that > results from mixing the reviews, active discussions of documents > accepted as WG topics, and semi-random "I'd like the AppsArea to > discuss my latest plan for making Vern's list [1] or its web > equivalent" notes and discussion threads and sometimes just find > myself deferring looking at the list for days, then giving up > and deleting everything on the theory that it is OBE. =A0At least > for those of us with limited time, Barry's notion that we should > "keep as much of the area-related discussion in the same place, > on one list" works well as long as everyone doing work in the > Area has unlimited time for reading a large, and > seemingly-growing, amount of traffic. No, not really. I actually agree with you that conceptually, it's better to split things by topic, so that people who're interested in email but not web stuff, for example, can have things sorted out for them, and the sane people can leave the internationalization stuff for the crazies. The problem is that I don't see how it's workable. You're saying that *you* can't readily do the triage of {stuff I have to see}, {stuff I'm interested in}, {stuff I don't care about}, but then you're sort of asking *us* (for some value of "us") to do it for you by splitting the lists. Surely, our filtering will be worse for you than yours will, and even if we should happen to hit your situation spot on, we'll be screwing up horridly for other folks. Suppose we split all this mess into (1) AppsDir reviews, (2) email-related discussions, (3) web-related discussions, (4) internationalization-related discussions, and (5) other. What happens when someone wants to talk about internationalizing webmail? Does that go in 2 and 4? 2, 3, and 4? Does that mean that people who are subscribed to email and web and have suboptimal filters have to see all this stuff twice because it's cross-posted? What happens when there's an AppsDir review of a document related to web... does the review go in both lists, 1 and 3? And so on. And when someone guesses wrong and posts something that would be in your "have to see" set to a list to which you aren't subscribed, you don't get the chance to glance at the subject line and decide to have a look inside. If it's all on one list, you can at least scan the subject lines and make a guess at what you can trash wholesale. It might be wrong sometimes, when the subject lines are inaccurate or worse. But it's a start. Of course, we've already separated out (or tried to) the App stuff from, say, Sec and Ops and Rtg, and so on... and I'm not suggesting that we put all that together just in case (where do discussions go that have to do with web security?). So we can certainly argue for more granular segregation. But do you really think that separating AppsDir reviews from the rest of the Apps-Discuss traffic will help most people and will be sufficient? Barry From sm@elandsys.com Sat May 19 14:57:01 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 5A83411E8086 for ; Sat, 19 May 2012 14:57:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.11 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, 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 qcJOatJxLO+p for ; Sat, 19 May 2012 14:56:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A32B11E8073 for ; Sat, 19 May 2012 14:56:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.233.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4JLuUH5002620 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 19 May 2012 14:56:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1337464604; i=@elandsys.com; bh=H9W3cYmWTFX4B6X+5QNXjdEMrvzYAihH7gfF+g0aJNQ=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=PiH9GB9Vo6EHshVnFTO9L2rgsv/yfc6FBjo3ka20N45hTSt6ZlsWiihZy+UC5pUGd WE4M0SZIxWOaTN8VTEGKMiOEuVwfgiYPXXm4KjdKiK6OZq2y2KArpKnvV79guykHFW 2GWirzWExrNFwJGVcYyEs+EsVfQH+0BiOM/mAaik= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1337464604; i=@elandsys.com; bh=H9W3cYmWTFX4B6X+5QNXjdEMrvzYAihH7gfF+g0aJNQ=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=vRMTgamtitzuOb2yRCgYxn+m8rDZ3I3hf7KTBndsTEAr22rcR1tpXQVJtX7csCssL mubmFLOSNFPejC7/A5/AiKzK/V1h9oRPWkNs3Qzv21ngWR3RludGQeg3ackpjzlf/q nofaFPII04poQMiizRG30Ivpcz2IdQS+rB2tEfEc= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120519123732.0655ea38@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 14:51:33 -0700 To: appsdir@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@elandnews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: Tony Hansen , Andrew Sullivan , Stephen Farrell Subject: Re: [appsdir] Mailing list to discuss about Applications Area Directorate 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: Sat, 19 May 2012 21:57:01 -0000 Hello, [Cc to people who are not subscribed to appsdir@. See http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/appsdir/current/maillist.html for all the comments] Barry, Apps AD, mentioned that he is "very much against the idea of moving apps-related discussions off of apps-discuss". Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/appsdir/current/msg00940.html for the entire message posted by Barry. APPSDIR reviews will continue to be sent to app-discuss@ as usual as I cannot make such a change without the approval of Barry or Pete. Best regards, -sm From mnot@mnot.net Sun May 20 04:41:28 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 517DC21F84E6 for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 04:41:28 -0700 (PDT) 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 4sq7K-rZWWbb for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 04:41:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EA2821F849B for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 04:41:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mnot-mini.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.21.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AFB7622E1F4; Sun, 20 May 2012 07:41:19 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Mark Nottingham In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 21:41:16 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <5DF3B1C1-BFF3-467D-BD44-737A62F82D47@mnot.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@elandnews.com> To: Barry Leiba X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: John C Klensin , appsdir@ietf.org, S Moonesamy Subject: Re: [appsdir] Mailing list to discuss about Applications Area Directorate 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: Sun, 20 May 2012 11:41:28 -0000 I understand that there's a rationale for this, but the simple truth is = that I'm in the same boat as John - too much e-mail, not enough time, so = things get "filtered."=20 When they're all on the same list, it's a manual process, which is more = error-prone, and it means that everything has to be sorted manually = *first*, something that I put off, resulting in delays. When they're separate lists, the sorting step is automatic (thanks, = sieve), and I can pay more immediate attention to the higher priority = ones. Yes, I get duplicate e-mails; oh well. As it is, the apps-discuss list is starting to remind me of the HTML5 = experience; a place where only the really dedicated can participate, = because it's a broad firehose. BTW, I'm curious; LC announcements ask for comments to be sent to ietf@, = yet we send appsdir to iesg@. Why the difference?=20 On 20/05/2012, at 7:26 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: >> FWIW, +1. I've been overwhelmed by the traffic level that >> results from mixing the reviews, active discussions of documents >> accepted as WG topics, and semi-random "I'd like the AppsArea to >> discuss my latest plan for making Vern's list [1] or its web >> equivalent" notes and discussion threads and sometimes just find >> myself deferring looking at the list for days, then giving up >> and deleting everything on the theory that it is OBE. At least >> for those of us with limited time, Barry's notion that we should >> "keep as much of the area-related discussion in the same place, >> on one list" works well as long as everyone doing work in the >> Area has unlimited time for reading a large, and >> seemingly-growing, amount of traffic. >=20 > No, not really. I actually agree with you that conceptually, it's > better to split things by topic, so that people who're interested in > email but not web stuff, for example, can have things sorted out for > them, and the sane people can leave the internationalization stuff for > the crazies. The problem is that I don't see how it's workable. > You're saying that *you* can't readily do the triage of {stuff I have > to see}, {stuff I'm interested in}, {stuff I don't care about}, but > then you're sort of asking *us* (for some value of "us") to do it for > you by splitting the lists. Surely, our filtering will be worse for > you than yours will, and even if we should happen to hit your > situation spot on, we'll be screwing up horridly for other folks. >=20 > Suppose we split all this mess into (1) AppsDir reviews, (2) > email-related discussions, (3) web-related discussions, (4) > internationalization-related discussions, and (5) other. What happens > when someone wants to talk about internationalizing webmail? Does > that go in 2 and 4? 2, 3, and 4? Does that mean that people who are > subscribed to email and web and have suboptimal filters have to see > all this stuff twice because it's cross-posted? What happens when > there's an AppsDir review of a document related to web... does the > review go in both lists, 1 and 3? And so on. >=20 > And when someone guesses wrong and posts something that would be in > your "have to see" set to a list to which you aren't subscribed, you > don't get the chance to glance at the subject line and decide to have > a look inside. If it's all on one list, you can at least scan the > subject lines and make a guess at what you can trash wholesale. It > might be wrong sometimes, when the subject lines are inaccurate or > worse. But it's a start. >=20 > Of course, we've already separated out (or tried to) the App stuff > from, say, Sec and Ops and Rtg, and so on... and I'm not suggesting > that we put all that together just in case (where do discussions go > that have to do with web security?). So we can certainly argue for > more granular segregation. But do you really think that separating > AppsDir reviews from the rest of the Apps-Discuss traffic will help > most people and will be sufficient? >=20 > Barry > _______________________________________________ > appsdir mailing list > appsdir@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/appsdir -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ From barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Sun May 20 08:57:03 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 3F5FF21F85E7 for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 08:57:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.703 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.703 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.274, 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 6-y9pdcIwWKL for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 08:57:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6156321F85E5 for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 08:57:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lagv3 with SMTP id v3so3417810lag.31 for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 08:57:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; 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=oE/Vw+CNv0paKnSXpbZBTm+swl/z9MpJm2jn0EIS0wY=; b=AE3m5jcqxaNnWws1VOyPRe1MHAmK8fT9VfZkvCFJlcsCFjq3mRq0hhF7Rx2k73uXT8 fznRRH0JbwYocPLJqg7WU5u10CClWEztUkONyRvU51V9+hlFDe7o++CPKjZNB/mMDKls sd9NN+aMCaQ0KV0uK5rJfFEVomIRDUzcAL20aDw6txV1AQncH7I1Bh23/a6IVnBLByYS N93OeFqC09EQIRtBY3RELdRraeqFwXPb9e0l9oGec75jfkvY6AJQaumEMcvc0IWyRhQP 2nyGP+VC0PBodPjF7J8IS2iaLzIZRH7cYUzwNAfsrwbdCaPhCo5xM7vsWISb3jcR73dI Jq7Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.32.33 with SMTP id f1mr7541130lbi.54.1337529421076; Sun, 20 May 2012 08:57:01 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.7.7 with HTTP; Sun, 20 May 2012 08:57:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5DF3B1C1-BFF3-467D-BD44-737A62F82D47@mnot.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@elandnews.com> <5DF3B1C1-BFF3-467D-BD44-737A62F82D47@mnot.net> Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 11:57:00 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: jIHh-kQUq0XxRuPamhVldrtsQkM Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: Mark Nottingham , John C Klensin , S Moonesamy Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: appsdir@ietf.org, Tony Hansen , Andrew Sullivan , Stephen Farrell Subject: Re: [appsdir] Mailing list to discuss about Applications Area Directorate 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: Sun, 20 May 2012 15:57:03 -0000 SM said: > Barry, Apps AD, mentioned that he is "very much against the idea of movin= g > apps-related discussions off of apps-discuss". =A0Please refer to > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/appsdir/current/msg00940.html for th= e > entire message posted by Barry. Well, now, what my preference, even a strong one, is doesn't amount to edict. If I decide unilaterally that we'll go one way, and that causes us to lost a good bit of participation and attention from some people we rely on for reviews and comments, that's clearly not in our collective benefit. Mark said: > I understand that there's a rationale for this, but the simple truth is t= hat I'm in > the same boat as John - too much e-mail, not enough time, so things get "= filtered." > > When they're all on the same list, it's a manual process, which is more e= rror-prone, > and it means that everything has to be sorted manually *first*, something= that I put > off, resulting in delays. > > When they're separate lists, the sorting step is automatic (thanks, sieve= ), and I can > pay more immediate attention to the higher priority ones. OK. But neither you nor John gave a clue about how you'd like the see the lists sorted. Is it sufficient to just separate the AppsDir reviews from the rest? Would you also want to separate the AppsAWG work out to another list? Or is it important to also also separate the general apps-discuss stuff by topic? Let me suggest a few arrangements, and get opinions (and I agree that we aren't posting our "last call" comment to the ietf list, and we probably should): Arrangement 1a: AppsAWG and general Apps discussion stay on apps-discuss. AppsDir reviews go to authors with CC to ietf@ietf.org, and NOT to apps-dis= cuss. Arrangement 1b: AppsAWG and general Apps discussion stay on apps-discuss. AppsDir reviews go to authors with CC to ietf@ietf.org, and ALSO to a new list (resurrect the name apps-review). Arrangements 2a and 2b: AppsAWG gets a new apps-area-wg mailing list. General Apps discussion stays on apps-discuss. AppsDir reviews as in 1a and 1b. Arrangements 3a and 3b: AppsAWG gets a new apps-area-wg mailing list. General Apps discussion is divided in 3 or 4 mailing lists by broad topics. AppsDir reviews as in 1a and 1b. If you choose one of arrangements 3, please say how you would see the general apps discussion divided. And, of course, suggest another specific arrangement if you have one. I'll note that Andrew has specifically opined that the AppsDir reviews DO belong with the general apps discussion... why are we bothering to do apps reviews, he asks, if the reviews aren't of interest to the apps area? Barry From john-ietf@jck.com Sun May 20 10:18:21 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 AC17E21F854E for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 10:18:21 -0700 (PDT) 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 NquXEkCbBkWC for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 10:18:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B21521F8541 for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 10:18:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [198.252.137.7] (helo=PST.JCK.COM) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1SW9gI-000KVG-Fs; Sun, 20 May 2012 13:12:34 -0400 Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 13:18:12 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Barry Leiba Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Cc: appsdir@ietf.org, S Moonesamy Subject: Re: [appsdir] Mailing list to discuss about Applications Area Directorate 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: Sun, 20 May 2012 17:18:21 -0000 Barry, My apologies for slow turn-around in this discussion. It would be reasonable for you to consider it a symptom of the problem I'm concerned about. --On Saturday, May 19, 2012 17:26 -0400 Barry Leiba wrote: >> FWIW, +1. =C2=A0I've been overwhelmed by the traffic level = that >> results from mixing the reviews, active discussions of >> documents accepted as WG topics, and semi-random "I'd like >> the AppsArea to discuss my latest plan for making Vern's list >> [1] or its web equivalent" notes and discussion threads and >> sometimes just find myself deferring looking at the list for >> days, then giving up and deleting everything on the theory >> that it is OBE. =C2=A0At least for those of us with limited = time, >> Barry's notion that we should "keep as much of the >> area-related discussion in the same place, on one list" works >> well as long as everyone doing work in the Area has unlimited >> time for reading a large, and >> seemingly-growing, amount of traffic. =20 > No, not really. I actually agree with you that conceptually, > it's better to split things by topic, so that people who're > interested in email but not web stuff, for example, can have > things sorted out for them, and the sane people can leave the > internationalization stuff for the crazies. The problem is > that I don't see how it's workable. You're saying that *you* > can't readily do the triage of {stuff I have to see}, {stuff > I'm interested in}, {stuff I don't care about}, but then > you're sort of asking *us* (for some value of "us") to do it > for you by splitting the lists. Surely, our filtering will be > worse for you than yours will, and even if we should happen to > hit your situation spot on, we'll be screwing up horridly for > other folks. Ok, that is fair. But... First of all, that is why we traditionally create WGs for such purposes, rather than trying to do a large fraction of the IETF's work in some highly aggregated "area working group". It is also why long-lived area WGs have often worked better than they do in Apps, precisely because the area is so much more diverse -- contains so many very different topic specialities -- than others. And... > Suppose we split all this mess into (1) AppsDir reviews, (2) > email-related discussions, (3) web-related discussions, (4) > internationalization-related discussions, and (5) other. What > happens when someone wants to talk about internationalizing > webmail? Does that go in 2 and 4? 2, 3, and 4? Does that > mean that people who are subscribed to email and web and have > suboptimal filters have to see all this stuff twice because > it's cross-posted? What happens when there's an AppsDir > review of a document related to web... does the review go in > both lists, 1 and 3? And so on. I didn't suggest splitting out (2), (3), and (4) or even (5). Yes, it seems tempting, but I recognize exactly the issues you point out. But contrast this situation with a normal WG in which there are issues that are on-topic and ones that aren't, a charter to delimit the difference, and a range of options for dealing with extraneous traffic starting with "whine at the Chair". Here, there appears to be no real charter limits other than "possibly an application" so we have discussions not only of documents that have been agreed to as topics for consideration but (sometimes very long) discussions of documents that someone thinks the Apps Area should look at some day. If the authors of such documents were forced into a WG context, they, and those interested in developing a proposal, would probably not be discussing either a draft charter or specific documents on the main list. =20 Similarly, a directorate list has been used from time to time in this Area to discuss strategic topics but rarely the details of particular documents. Whether a list should exist for that purpose really is up to you and Pete unilaterally -- by selecting you as ADs, the community gave you a lot of discretion about Area management which I think the rest of us should respect unless things got really out of hand (something I consider thoroughly unlikely with the two of you). But we are now using that list for strategy (very rarely), for administrative assignments for reviews, and a lot of other traffic. And reviews of documents that may have nothing directly to do with the Applications Area gets posted to the Area list (specific suggestion about that below). > And when someone guesses wrong and posts something that would > be in your "have to see" set to a list to which you aren't > subscribed, you don't get the chance to glance at the subject > line and decide to have a look inside. If it's all on one > list, you can at least scan the subject lines and make a guess > at what you can trash wholesale. It might be wrong sometimes, > when the subject lines are inaccurate or worse. But it's a > start. Sure. On the other hand, if you/we really wanted to optimize that, we'd pay a lot more attention to subject lines in the knowledge that, in practice, very long ones get truncated in a lot of MUAs. If all I see in the subject line is "Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of" (and I think there was a subthread recently in which that actually was the subject line), then glancing at the subject line is of almost no value in making an intelligent decision about what to do about the message. > Of course, we've already separated out (or tried to) the App > stuff from, say, Sec and Ops and Rtg, and so on... But, when a review of a protocol with absolutely no Applications-specific implications is posted to the Apps list, work in those other areas is _not_ separated out. > and I'm not > suggesting that we put all that together just in case (where > do discussions go that have to do with web security?). So we > can certainly argue for more granular segregation. But do you > really think that separating AppsDir reviews from the rest of > the Apps-Discuss traffic will help most people and will be > sufficient? Ok, specific suggestion for your consideration, mostly to illustrate that there are other alternatives: (1) Reviews of work in other Areas are not posted to the Apps-Discuss list unless either the reviewer or the review team leadership can identify reasons why the specification in question has specific Applications implications that the rest of us should know about. Those decisions won't be perfect, but... (2) Reviews or other discussions of work in Apps Area WGs are not posted to the Apps-Discuss list. That is what we have WGs for and people who are materially concerned with the work of a given WG should be on that WG's list. Since we don't do an Area Last Call between the usual WG LC and IETF LC, I think WG Chairs and/or relevant ADs should be encouraged to post a note to the Apps-Discuss list announcing a WG Last Call or upcoming critical decision (much as they might make an announcement at a f2f AppsArea meeting) but I think that ought to be discretionary (there is always IETF LC if someone makes the wrong decision) and that any subsequent discussion should go to the WG list. =20 (3) Preliminary reviews (prior to IETF LC) of documents being worked on in WGs in the Applications Area should be copied _only_ to the WG list. Those reviews can be immensely useful but, if they are copied to the Apps-Discuss list, they become clutter for those who aren't interested in the WG's work and duplicates for those who are. Worse, we inevitably end up with follow-up messages on the WG list, on the Apps-Discuss list, and with copies to both. Keeping track of all of the relevant comments then becomes unnecessary extra work for WG [Co-]Chairs and others and, noting that the Apps-Discuss list is not an appeal forum for WG actions, provides almost no extra value. (4) We should keep reviewing whether there are clusters of related proposals that really ought to be handled in a topic-specific WG with a real charter. I know there is a problem getting WGs, especially WGs that people are not absolutely sure about, chartered with a reasonable amount of effort. But, if that problem is significant enough, let's solve it rather than using AppsAWG to work around it. And, while it saddens me to say this, if there isn't sufficient interest and critical mass to keep a WG and its documents alive, then there isn't sufficient interest. We shouldn't say "well, we can do it in the AppsAWG because there are a lot of people on its mailing list": if those people aren't contributing or aren't experts, then the larger list doesn't help and may actually create a false impression about informed consensus. I think those four measures would reduce the amount of extraneous traffic considerably and might have side-benefits of making WGs easier to manage and monitor. =20 best, john From sm@elandsys.com Sun May 20 12:52:35 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 87C6821F8504 for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 12:52:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.855 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.855 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.745, 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 a4BWCZnmihgP for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 12:52:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6330D21F84FA for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 12:52:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.234.86]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4KJq8mf026672 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 20 May 2012 12:52:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1337543543; i=@elandsys.com; bh=g0xWgzRJEmdEltjsq5rn0+97mZyoeJ+EVgK2rVaf4A0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=vd1m48F2yBTaK2R/L3SVEoXDSQWNlFuCLYnmdcPTGris+pRyvykWEm2SwYyeN7T6U 8k257Bw27WfPLO3FKHcb/sIuci4MUtjBKFg8SgrOJ/+LqL8qi5e/ZVxzjteN3uS3/x DBq+miMxuuOzzKc+AnVpMEHV9m903+qCg4C40uuo= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1337543543; i=@elandsys.com; bh=g0xWgzRJEmdEltjsq5rn0+97mZyoeJ+EVgK2rVaf4A0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=cZscyR+Zk0ZNy7JkmiiM5wxlUxS3JHXUm/W6A8PRQqEkh+slFww2MO3e/qXGl0m47 UZ56gskE8R+YVofJoV8GQEsYziIP31mGsI1GqIxJhY5O0FMD2vjfhdwi3KwPxNeLek smJDEdLKpm3SOKagWapWE7e6tQHFJU9FKELuXWeA= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120520090600.0ad1e648@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 11:31:08 -0700 To: appsdir@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@elandnews.com> <5DF3B1C1-BFF3-467D-BD44-737A62F82D47@mnot.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: Mark Nottingham , Barry Leiba , Stephen Farrell Subject: Re: [appsdir] Mailing list to discuss about Applications Area Directorate 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: Sun, 20 May 2012 19:52:35 -0000 Hello, At 08:57 20-05-2012, Barry Leiba wrote: >Well, now, what my preference, even a strong one, is doesn't amount to >edict. If I decide unilaterally that we'll go one way, and that >causes us to lost a good bit of participation and attention from some >people we rely on for reviews and comments, that's clearly not in our >collective benefit. I don't read what Barry said as an edict. As this was an informal discussion I gave the short answer. Stephen Farrell is Security AD. If I am taking an action which will generate more traffic on ietf@, I will give more weight to his views. The alternative is to ask Stephen to talk to Barry and Pete and for them to talk to me. There has been feedback from APPSDIR and from two apps-discuss@ subscribers. The general sense I got from the discussion was not to do the change. It would been the same even without Barry's preference. At 04:41 20-05-2012, Mark Nottingham wrote: >BTW, I'm curious; LC announcements ask for comments to be sent to >ietf@, yet we send appsdir to iesg@. Why the difference? The Apps Area Review Team used to send its reviews to apps-discuss@ and authors only. An Area Director outside Apps Area mentioned that he was interested in reading the reviews. The reviews are copied to iesg@ because of that. The Directorate also performs early reviews. I did not suggest adding iesg@ for such cases as it is better that APPSDIR reviews receive attention when input is requested for the decision (Last Call). BTW, if we send APPSDIR reviews to ietf@ with a copy to apps-discuss@, we can expect many more threads like the DANE thread. Best regards, -sm From mnot@mnot.net Sun May 20 16:01:07 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 E481B21F85D5 for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 16:01:07 -0700 (PDT) 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 ikxPG2KBkuwT for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 16:01:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28E9421F85D2 for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 16:01:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mnot-mini.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.21.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3ED6C22E1EB; Sun, 20 May 2012 19:00:58 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Mark Nottingham In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 09:00:56 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6C1621D4-2DE2-4645-AAD3-EC113EBCEB61@mnot.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@elandnews.com> <5DF3B1C1-BFF3-467D-BD44-737A62F82D47@mnot.net> To: Barry Leiba X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: Tony Hansen , appsdir@ietf.org, S Moonesamy , Andrew Sullivan , John C Klensin , Stephen Farrell Subject: Re: [appsdir] Mailing list to discuss about Applications Area Directorate 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: Sun, 20 May 2012 23:01:08 -0000 On 21/05/2012, at 1:57 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > Let me suggest a few arrangements, and get opinions (and I agree that > we aren't posting our "last call" comment to the ietf list, and we > probably should): >=20 > Arrangement 1a: > AppsAWG and general Apps discussion stay on apps-discuss. > AppsDir reviews go to authors with CC to ietf@ietf.org, and NOT to = apps-discuss. >=20 > Arrangement 1b: > AppsAWG and general Apps discussion stay on apps-discuss. > AppsDir reviews go to authors with CC to ietf@ietf.org, and ALSO to a > new list (resurrect the name apps-review). >=20 > Arrangements 2a and 2b: > AppsAWG gets a new apps-area-wg mailing list. > General Apps discussion stays on apps-discuss. > AppsDir reviews as in 1a and 1b. >=20 > Arrangements 3a and 3b: > AppsAWG gets a new apps-area-wg mailing list. > General Apps discussion is divided in 3 or 4 mailing lists by broad = topics. > AppsDir reviews as in 1a and 1b. >=20 > If you choose one of arrangements 3, please say how you would see the > general apps discussion divided. And, of course, suggest another > specific arrangement if you have one. I'm OK with any of these. I don't think the general discussion needs to = be divided. Thanks, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ From sm@elandsys.com Sun May 20 16:12:15 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 E88B021F85DD for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 16:12:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.227 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.227 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.372, 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 KEC1libzO-2w for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 16:12:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC19521F8575 for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 16:12:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.234.86]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4KNBvHg016887 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 16:12:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1337555529; i=@elandsys.com; bh=zKe1ctioHIxyPr78aCt39SxDcvt50QKg44yC66KbQ8o=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=BYsK9qDxeLVfCWOxHxfacqiJmPWWcCTz1dlrwafQCG5va9NeConj3A9q8EkMrxOxd iqDbKf5VEBrYXR1ztwIrW7RPgc6k3nL21ZIF2Mf3F1oPaOVkKqF5MmljfNIGswYFPu kgrHlX1+/aycIjXYYLcF4Af3DksRBXMtl93qBoMQ= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1337555529; i=@elandsys.com; bh=zKe1ctioHIxyPr78aCt39SxDcvt50QKg44yC66KbQ8o=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=EV425SP98Uqfp1gvBMY9v/RsYPDS60/FuwNzkOeqT6SKTwBlEeihyesxAj7IlDezy qG1MYEYPBJ5z/9gCbynRwty/q3UU5NFnOa9FFEuASmrqC0uw5YiHqpu4OgAOteordn 9jBQZv9hN+lgb/gVVN/qcJzdrzsBDQsARYih2c8o= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120520124603.0b0f3548@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 15:15:50 -0700 To: appsdir@ietf.org From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [appsdir] Historical notes about the team 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, 20 May 2012 23:12:16 -0000 Hello, Peter took over as Apps Review Team Leader in October 2009 ( http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-review/current/msg00210.html ). Alexey and Peter picked me as Apps Review Team Leader in May 2012 ( http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-review/current/msg00210.html ). I was surprised by the selection as they had never met me. I did not have any clue about how to do the work. I found out that when requests for reviews were ignored nothing could be done. I got to meet Alexey at IETF78. I wasn't comfortable as I didn't know what to say if he asked why the team were not working. He came to me and said "it's not your fault" before the subject came up. There was still a problem though. Either somebody did something about the problem or else it would not be solved. Alexey and I (Peter joined us in the hallway) had a chat before the Apps Area lunch on Monday. The problem was discussed during that lunch. At the end of the discussion, Alexey asked me in front of everyone whether I thought that it would fix my problem and my answer was "no". I posted a message about monthly reports ( http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-review/current/msg00282.html ). That was the starting point of the effort. There wasn't any plan. There were several tweaks along the way. I don't recall requesting Apps AD approval for several of them. I notified the Apps ADs before doing most of the tweaks. I didn't know whether I could fire a reviewer. I never had to ask any of the Apps ADs about that. When I did not like something I told them about it. I guess that we had this unstated understanding that problems had to be addressed. There were times when I overstepped the line. The Apps ADs understood what it was about even though we didn't discuss beforehand. I suggested creating a directorate in September 2012 ( http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-review/current/msg00597.html ). I didn't have to argue for it. The work of the team spoke for itself. It was a request the Apps ADs could not refuse. :-) The Directorate was created in November 2011 ( http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-review/current/msg00650.html ). The title of Team Lead was intentionally picked for the next Team Lead. There is a reason why I did not pick "secretary". I never gave much thought to the title of the members of the team except that I did not want it to be "director". I don't recall ever having to use the fancy title. I did not have to spell out things as you understood what I would like to see. I enjoyed getting to meet each of you and working with you. Best regards, -sm From john-ietf@jck.com Sun May 20 17:01:35 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 33A9A21F8597 for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 17:01:35 -0700 (PDT) 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=[AWL=0.000, 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 ajOGqJox8VNj for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 17:01:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DAF821F855A for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 17:01:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [198.252.137.7] (helo=PST.JCK.COM) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1SWFyR-000KtW-Gf; Sun, 20 May 2012 19:55:43 -0400 Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 20:01:21 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Barry Leiba , Mark Nottingham , S Moonesamy Message-ID: <03FF075B3438F66A5E239576@PST.JCK.COM> In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@elandnews.com> <5DF3B1C1-BFF3-467D-BD44-737A62F82D47@mnot.net> 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, Tony Hansen , Andrew Sullivan , Stephen Farrell Subject: Re: [appsdir] Mailing list to discuss about Applications Area Directorate 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: Mon, 21 May 2012 00:01:35 -0000 --On Sunday, May 20, 2012 11:57 -0400 Barry Leiba wrote: > Let me suggest a few arrangements, and get opinions (and I > agree that we aren't posting our "last call" comment to the > ietf list, and we probably should): > > Arrangement 1a: > AppsAWG and general Apps discussion stay on apps-discuss. > AppsDir reviews go to authors with CC to ietf@ietf.org, and > NOT to apps-discuss. > > Arrangement 1b: > AppsAWG and general Apps discussion stay on apps-discuss. > AppsDir reviews go to authors with CC to ietf@ietf.org, and > ALSO to a new list (resurrect the name apps-review). > > Arrangements 2a and 2b: > AppsAWG gets a new apps-area-wg mailing list. > General Apps discussion stays on apps-discuss. > AppsDir reviews as in 1a and 1b. > > Arrangements 3a and 3b: > AppsAWG gets a new apps-area-wg mailing list. > General Apps discussion is divided in 3 or 4 mailing lists by > broad topics. AppsDir reviews as in 1a and 1b. > > If you choose one of arrangements 3, please say how you would > see the general apps discussion divided. And, of course, > suggest another specific arrangement if you have one. I don't have a strong preference among 1a/1b/2a/2b, although I'd made different decisions about what I need to be subscribed to for different of them. I think 3a/3b would be more trouble than they are worth for the reasons you gave and I responded to in earlier notes. > I'll note that Andrew has specifically opined that the AppsDir > reviews DO belong with the general apps discussion... why are > we bothering to do apps reviews, he asks, if the reviews > aren't of interest to the apps area? Personal response/ reaction: the purpose of an an Apps Area review and review team is to make certain that someone with an applications perspective takes a careful look at the document. It isn't to get some sort of Area consensus on the document: if it were, not only would different procedures be appropriate, but the "just another LC review" disclaimer would be wrong. If nothing else, I'd expect an Area Consensus review to force a DISCUSS, probably subject to appears and/or recall if it didn't occur, from both Apps ADs. I don't think we want to go anywhere near there. If the team reviews really are individual reviews on a "make sure someone from the area takes a careful look" basis, then those reviews that are associated with IETF LC need to be copied to authors (and probably the relevant WG is there is one) and the IETF-discuss list because that is normal procedure. There is no more special reason to copy any Apps Area discussion list unless the ADs would like to recommend/request that _any_ review or comments by folks who participate in Apps Area work during IETF Last Call be copied to that list. I've already explained why I believe that preliminary reviews (prior to IETF or even WG LC) should be copied to the relevant WG list only. Such reviews on true individual submissions might be a different story, but I think they are a special case relative to the rest of this discussion. john From mnot@mnot.net Sun May 20 17:05:27 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 29D6521F8597 for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 17:05:27 -0700 (PDT) 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 K4vuQYHFqQ3v for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 17:05:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7698621F8594 for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 17:05:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mnot-air.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.21.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0739622E1F4; Sun, 20 May 2012 20:05:18 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Mark Nottingham In-Reply-To: <03FF075B3438F66A5E239576@PST.JCK.COM> Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 10:05:34 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1A6F1FA3-C49B-41AF-8BF6-92DE6F09B1FB@mnot.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@elandnews.com> <5DF3B1C1-BFF3-467D-BD44-737A62F82D47@mnot.net> <03FF075B3438F66A5E239576@PST.JCK.COM> To: John C Klensin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Cc: Tony Hansen , appsdir@ietf.org, S Moonesamy , Andrew Sullivan , Barry Leiba , Stephen Farrell Subject: Re: [appsdir] Mailing list to discuss about Applications Area Directorate 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: Mon, 21 May 2012 00:05:27 -0000 On 21/05/2012, at 10:01 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > Personal response/ reaction: the purpose of an an Apps Area > review and review team is to make certain that someone with an > applications perspective takes a careful look at the document. > It isn't to get some sort of Area consensus on the document: if > it were, not only would different procedures be appropriate, but > the "just another LC review" disclaimer would be wrong. If > nothing else, I'd expect an Area Consensus review to force a > DISCUSS, probably subject to appears and/or recall if it didn't > occur, from both Apps ADs. I don't think we want to go anywhere > near there. > > If the team reviews really are individual reviews on a "make > sure someone from the area takes a careful look" basis, then > those reviews that are associated with IETF LC need to be copied > to authors (and probably the relevant WG is there is one) and > the IETF-discuss list because that is normal procedure. There > is no more special reason to copy any Apps Area discussion list > unless the ADs would like to recommend/request that _any_ review > or comments by folks who participate in Apps Area work during > IETF Last Call be copied to that list. +1 -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ From john-ietf@jck.com Sun May 20 19:50:21 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 8AAAF21F853C for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 19:50:21 -0700 (PDT) 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 7bA-+qcxcQeq for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 19:50:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 624A921F8504 for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 19:50:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [198.252.137.7] (helo=PST.JCK.COM) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1SWIbh-000L3G-6d; Sun, 20 May 2012 22:44:25 -0400 Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 22:50:03 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Mark Nottingham Message-ID: <43172BFD5C6572288E791806@PST.JCK.COM> In-Reply-To: <1A6F1FA3-C49B-41AF-8BF6-92DE6F09B1FB@mnot.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@elandnews.com> <5DF3B1C1-BFF3-467D-BD44-737A62F82D47@mnot.net> <03FF075B3438F66A5E239576@PST.JCK.COM> <1A6F1FA3-C49B-41AF-8BF6-92DE6F09B1FB@mnot.net> 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: Tony Hansen , appsdir@ietf.org, S Moonesamy , Andrew Sullivan , Barry Leiba , Stephen Farrell Subject: Re: [appsdir] Mailing list to discuss about Applications Area Directorate 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: Mon, 21 May 2012 02:50:21 -0000 --On Monday, May 21, 2012 10:05 +1000 Mark Nottingham wrote: >> If the team reviews really are individual reviews on a "make >> sure someone from the area takes a careful look" basis, then >> those reviews that are associated with IETF LC need to be >> copied to authors (and probably the relevant WG is there is >> one) and the IETF-discuss list because that is normal >> procedure. There is no more special reason to copy any Apps >> Area discussion list unless the ADs would like to >> recommend/request that _any_ review or comments by folks who >> participate in Apps Area work during IETF Last Call be copied >> to that list. > > +1 Additional thought: because of the same extreme diversity in the area that prevents breaking AppsAWG work up into little subject matter pieces, I don't think that would be wise to implement but, as something else to think about.. if the purpose of an Apps Area Review is to be sure that someone from the Area has looked at a given spec, we should not want or need such reviews for specs originating from any Apps Area WG (including AppsAWG). By definition, there are Apps folks represented in such work; if there were not, the WGs would presumably not exist or would be in some other area. And, while there are specific exceptions, an early/ preliminary review of WG work within the area could be interpreted as saying something profound about what we think about, and how much we trust, our own WGs. john From sm@elandsys.com Mon May 21 03:48:38 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 7F2D621F853D for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 03:48:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.351 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.351 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.248, 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 xZ+AMJyvHdMs for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 03:48:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5334921F8525 for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 03:48:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.234.86]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4LAmIEq003363 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 03:48:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1337597311; i=@elandsys.com; bh=Qfog84mwzNX47Xxc/T1HzRAXTiYpGuvOVmY/mByVp98=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc; b=niubxMnKnqyr9n6+quc17+mDgxdz9ndGcJMdJP5nmRr1vBecgd09IbPXFClfQNcDV 5Rx5lfhdLNmhcN9qPP166cwFZjT421sfIHi5ORhRy2UtbDpCg80ZrCxTJa+ansq6yT izK2O5UhysvFKec5yhNaFcCy8hX0s08DoCkr2g+0= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1337597311; i=@elandsys.com; bh=Qfog84mwzNX47Xxc/T1HzRAXTiYpGuvOVmY/mByVp98=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc; b=LtT4PfW7iCkqOEC6c8by8Ifj7aYGJuwFPV5FdsMVC66o7grVRY1NnK3+x0DVq4Fy5 pSDqCjSUVwmGzllTeJcXRn5VS+NyP5vZEDwF0c8+HFzT3Ohdegcwmoor3kKL+prcxZ zHw8mTBjpousz7K6WKc3UUJjRHWvsO5+f99gji88= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120520222453.0b0f7e50@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 02:57:59 -0700 To: appsdir@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: <43172BFD5C6572288E791806@PST.JCK.COM> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@elandnews.com> <5DF3B1C1-BFF3-467D-BD44-737A62F82D47@mnot.net> <03FF075B3438F66A5E239576@PST.JCK.COM> <1A6F1FA3-C49B-41AF-8BF6-92DE6F09B1FB@mnot.net> <43172BFD5C6572288E791806@PST.JCK.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [appsdir] Mailing list to discuss about Applications Area Directorate 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: Mon, 21 May 2012 10:48:38 -0000 At 19:50 20-05-2012, John C Klensin wrote: >but, as something else to think about.. if the purpose of an >Apps Area Review is to be sure that someone from the Area has >looked at a given spec, we should not want or need such reviews >for specs originating from any Apps Area WG (including AppsAWG). If I am not mistaken all reviews for Apps Area WG were done around the time of a Last Call. It was more as another pair of eyes. >By definition, there are Apps folks represented in such work; if >there were not, the WGs would presumably not exist or would be >in some other area. And, while there are specific exceptions, >an early/ preliminary review of WG work within the area could be >interpreted as saying something profound about what we think >about, and how much we trust, our own WGs. I'll list some definitions so that we are all on the same wavelength: (a) preliminary review - done before a WGLC (b) early review - post-WGLC (c) review - Last Call has been issued There were only two cases when item (a) occurred for drafts in the Apps Area. I'll consider them as exceptions. The condition for (a) is Apps AD or WG Chair approval. If there is any objection to (a) as a review option, I'll drop it. I'll lump (b) and (c) together as it is convenient for me. Here are some reviews of drafts within the Apps Area (excluding individual submissions): http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg05787.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg05775.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg05115.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg04598.html And of drafts which are from the Security Area but also fit under Apps: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg05306.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg05100.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg04811.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg04799.html I cannot comment on the reviews. I leave it to you to determine whether there were positive results and whether it was worth the additional mail traffic. Barry suggested some alternatives at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/appsdir/current/msg00951.html Assuming that we are doing (b) and (c):- Arrangement 4a: AppsDir reviews go to authors with CC to ietf@ with BCC to apps-discuss. Arangement 4b: AppsDir reviews go to authors with CC to ietf@ with BCC to appsdir. I used BCC as some people will blindly hit on "reply to all". (5a) Non-apps issues are discussed on the WG mailing list. There is a Cc to the Team Lead. (5b) Minor issues are discussed on the WG mailing list. There is a Cc to the Team Lead. (5c) Nits are discussed on the WG mailing list, the document shepherd advises on the venue. There is a Cc to the Team Lead. (5d) I'll put the "issues have been addressed" on the WG mailing list with a Cc to the Team Lead. I may be the only one who uses that review format. :-) Arrangement 5 can be implemented now. I haven't looked into how much traffic it would take off apps-discuss. Best regards, -sm From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Mon May 21 04:11:02 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 99C7721F85B7 for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 04:11:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.392 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.392 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.207, 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 Ssq2DtA6Z6uP for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 04:11:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2471B21F8599 for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 04:11:02 -0700 (PDT) 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 79B411ECB41D; Mon, 21 May 2012 11:11:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 07:11:07 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: John C Klensin Message-ID: <20120521111107.GC703@mail.yitter.info> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@elandnews.com> <5DF3B1C1-BFF3-467D-BD44-737A62F82D47@mnot.net> <03FF075B3438F66A5E239576@PST.JCK.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <03FF075B3438F66A5E239576@PST.JCK.COM> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 21 May 2012 07:04:33 -0700 Cc: Tony Hansen , appsdir@ietf.org, S Moonesamy , Mark Nottingham , Barry Leiba , Stephen Farrell Subject: Re: [appsdir] Mailing list to discuss about Applications Area Directorate 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: Mon, 21 May 2012 11:11:02 -0000 On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 08:01:21PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Sunday, May 20, 2012 11:57 -0400 Barry Leiba > wrote: > > I'll note that Andrew has specifically opined that the AppsDir > > reviews DO belong with the general apps discussion... why are > > we bothering to do apps reviews, he asks, if the reviews > > aren't of interest to the apps area? > > Personal response/ reaction: the purpose of an an Apps Area > review and review team is to make certain that someone with an > applications perspective takes a careful look at the document. > It isn't to get some sort of Area consensus on the document: if My point was that, if we actually think that we need such perspectives for so many documents, then that's something the area ought to see. I wasn't imagining it meant consensus. Just that, if something is supposed to be "coming from" the applications area, however informally, the area ought to see it. > If the team reviews really are individual reviews on a "make > sure someone from the area takes a careful look" basis I don't believe for a second that officially-sanctioned area reviews that are advertised as such are in fact regarded as "just another review" by editors or WG chairs, and I don't think they're treated that way by ADs, either. If that's what those app area reviews are, then I think the note that they are app area reviews should itself be removed. Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From sm@elandsys.com Mon May 21 07:53:11 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 5386621F8679 for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 07:53:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.413 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.413 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.186, 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 aZpXSVy8zgmT for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 07:53:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2B0521F864C for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 07:53:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.234.86]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4LEqaoC028388 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 07:53:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1337611987; i=@elandsys.com; bh=6mplsEBuqxpGNVmHDSizZ49R+OLAEmimZ+JtQCAZW2Q=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=qjIcpUO+mqWK1Rvg5UdND3FvS7PZV7gvlT+7n7SoVKSGDRHLNZrhPQoyHwBr+w45W d9StS32e4dwXKNaPW42vIYRUwyyz1+Kq43QxENbYLuVTOyvnOxZMpH7PV5/vVNwRom lHrjTxi0o2oYZFuIoX/iLG84BqjcJQDAREeRJzbo= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1337611987; i=@elandsys.com; bh=6mplsEBuqxpGNVmHDSizZ49R+OLAEmimZ+JtQCAZW2Q=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=eYmYIH1eBSw/XN4T9v1r2Uu+Pujk/SZSV2I8k7SWOsV8Zm3IB4Twem1JkHYxYqKzP 4NxEqu5BvU4arEJQ4mfSUl3leXba2UvJjPpey7amtjjP6s8M+w2zAkRtIrwvds2vbZ yj71a3WyxsoiQi+Ffy2La9hachga7xx9jNTp0zk4= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120521074548.0a625980@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 07:52:17 -0700 To: appsdir@ietf.org From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [appsdir] List of drafts for review 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, 21 May 2012 14:53:11 -0000 Hello, Here's the assignment list and the due dates: June 1: draft-ietf-6lowpan-btle-07 - Jiankang draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls-04 - Alexey draft-camarillo-rai-media-policy-dataset-01 - Henry draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-10 - Carsten draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-13 - self draft-ietf-mile-iodef-xmlreg-01 - Yves I'll take a look at draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-gtsm-06 if I have time. Best regards, -sm From john-ietf@jck.com Mon May 21 09:00:23 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 27CF021F8675 for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 09:00:22 -0700 (PDT) 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=[AWL=0.000, 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 dkl3mfLw3z3f for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 09:00:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE89321F85B8 for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 09:00:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [198.252.137.7] (helo=PST.JCK.COM) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1SWUwC-000MCS-Rq; Mon, 21 May 2012 11:54:24 -0400 Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 12:00:04 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Andrew Sullivan Message-ID: <2CE291CDD36D748211307081@PST.JCK.COM> In-Reply-To: <20120521111107.GC703@mail.yitter.info> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@elandnews.com> <5DF3B1C1-BFF3-467D-BD44-737A62F82D47@mnot.net> <03FF075B3438F66A5E239576@PST.JCK.COM> <20120521111107.GC703@mail.yitter.info> 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: Tony Hansen , appsdir@ietf.org, S Moonesamy , Mark Nottingham , Barry Leiba , Stephen Farrell Subject: Re: [appsdir] Mailing list to discuss about Applications Area Directorate 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: Mon, 21 May 2012 16:00:23 -0000 --On Monday, May 21, 2012 07:11 -0400 Andrew Sullivan wrote: >... >> > I'll note that Andrew has specifically opined that the >> > AppsDir reviews DO belong with the general apps >> > discussion... why are we bothering to do apps reviews, he >> > asks, if the reviews aren't of interest to the apps area? >> >> Personal response/ reaction: the purpose of an an Apps Area >> review and review team is to make certain that someone with an >> applications perspective takes a careful look at the document. >> It isn't to get some sort of Area consensus on the document: >> if > > My point was that, if we actually think that we need such > perspectives for so many documents, then that's something the > area ought to see. I wasn't imagining it meant consensus. > Just that, if something is supposed to be "coming from" the > applications area, however informally, the area ought to see > it. I think I would draw a boundary between interpreting "ought to see" as "put it on the mailing list and hope that it makes everyone read it" and "make it available" for those who are interested. The logic behind the first could logically be extended to argue that all such reviews should be copied to all Apps Area WG mailing lists as well because there is no more obligation to subscribe to AppsDir or Apps-Discuss than there is to subscribe to ietf-discuss. One might then make an observation about leading horses to water, but that would presumably be unnecessary and trite. If your suggestion was that we archive all such reports on a readily-accessible web page and either create a separate "announce" list for that web page or that a monthly report (identifying information and links only) be sent to Apps-Discuss, I'd have no problem with it. But interpreting "the area ought to see it" as "those reports are so important that we should flood everyone who subscribed to a list for a different purpose in the hope that they will find it interesting or useful (or because it is good for them)"... no, unless one is determined to reduce effective participation in the area. >> If the team reviews really are individual reviews on a "make >> sure someone from the area takes a careful look" basis > I don't believe for a second that officially-sanctioned area > reviews that are advertised as such are in fact regarded as > "just another review" by editors or WG chairs, and I don't > think they're treated that way by ADs, either. If that's what > those app area reviews are, then I think the note that they > are app area reviews should itself be removed. Well, I think you are right about the expectation of special treatment despite the disclaimers. But, especially if you are, we are pretending really hard. Perhaps more important, it warps our processes that contain the expectation that any opinions that are given special weight come from: -- consensus within some identifiable and relevant group, or -- an acknowledged expert with special knowledge or history about the specification. These reviews do not inherently meet either of those criteria. The idea that a reviewer who is semi-random with regard to a particular spec can get special authority by the luck of the draw is quite problematic, at least IMO. best, john From tony@att.com Mon May 21 14:17:58 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 0123821F853B for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 14:17:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 Df8NPJfFgS-1 for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 14:17:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com [209.65.160.94]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF00E21F84D6 for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 14:17:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unknown [144.160.20.146] (EHLO mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.11.0-10) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 401babf4.0.326958.00-359.893301.nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Mon, 21 May 2012 21:17:56 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 4fbab1042e35066c-5592f8fccd127cb2dfd5630c124f8397f8ddbb4f Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4LLHtHY027655 for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 17:17:56 -0400 Received: from sflint04.pst.cso.att.com (sflint04.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.231]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4LLHmKG027404 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 17:17:51 -0400 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint04.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 17:17:10 -0400 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4LLHAm7003204 for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 17:17:10 -0400 Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4LLH65f002832 for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 17:17:06 -0400 Received: from [135.91.110.244] (ds135-91-110-244.dhcps.ugn.att.com[135.91.110.244]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20120521211331gw10060lg2e> (Authid: tony); Mon, 21 May 2012 21:13:33 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.91.110.244] Message-ID: <4FBAB0CE.901@att.com> Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 17:17:02 -0400 From: Tony Hansen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Barry Leiba References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@elandnews.com> <5DF3B1C1-BFF3-467D-BD44-737A62F82D47@mnot.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-RSA-Action: allow X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.20.146] X-AnalysisOut: [v=1.0 c=1 a=p4QNoMogDYAA:10 a=4JAii899aesA:10 a=Naz5SAXktS] X-AnalysisOut: [EA:10 a=ofMgfj31e3cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:1] X-AnalysisOut: [0 a=Qs8R1XBwmid1qBFB/a8mmA==:17 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=ly13lQU] X-AnalysisOut: [HgxHnAgP-qvEA:9 a=fATp1cf-iRaJsNQaNdYA:7 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10] X-AnalysisOut: [ a=qgdtSRvk12cA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10] Cc: appsdir@ietf.org, S Moonesamy , Andrew Sullivan , Mark Nottingham , John C Klensin , Stephen Farrell Subject: Re: [appsdir] Mailing list to discuss about Applications Area Directorate 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: Mon, 21 May 2012 21:17:58 -0000 You left off Arrangement 0: no change and Arrangement 1c: AppsAWG and apps gen stay on apps-discuss. Reviews to authors + apps-review. I have a preference for 0 followed by 1c, 1b and 1a. Tony On 5/20/2012 11:57 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > SM said: >> Barry, Apps AD, mentioned that he is "very much against the idea of moving >> apps-related discussions off of apps-discuss". Please refer to >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/appsdir/current/msg00940.html for the >> entire message posted by Barry. > Well, now, what my preference, even a strong one, is doesn't amount to > edict. If I decide unilaterally that we'll go one way, and that > causes us to lost a good bit of participation and attention from some > people we rely on for reviews and comments, that's clearly not in our > collective benefit. > > Mark said: >> I understand that there's a rationale for this, but the simple truth is that I'm in >> the same boat as John - too much e-mail, not enough time, so things get "filtered." >> >> When they're all on the same list, it's a manual process, which is more error-prone, >> and it means that everything has to be sorted manually *first*, something that I put >> off, resulting in delays. >> >> When they're separate lists, the sorting step is automatic (thanks, sieve), and I can >> pay more immediate attention to the higher priority ones. > OK. But neither you nor John gave a clue about how you'd like the see > the lists sorted. Is it sufficient to just separate the AppsDir > reviews from the rest? Would you also want to separate the AppsAWG > work out to another list? Or is it important to also also separate > the general apps-discuss stuff by topic? > > Let me suggest a few arrangements, and get opinions (and I agree that > we aren't posting our "last call" comment to the ietf list, and we > probably should): > > Arrangement 1a: > AppsAWG and general Apps discussion stay on apps-discuss. > AppsDir reviews go to authors with CC to ietf@ietf.org, and NOT to apps-discuss. > > Arrangement 1b: > AppsAWG and general Apps discussion stay on apps-discuss. > AppsDir reviews go to authors with CC to ietf@ietf.org, and ALSO to a > new list (resurrect the name apps-review). > > Arrangements 2a and 2b: > AppsAWG gets a new apps-area-wg mailing list. > General Apps discussion stays on apps-discuss. > AppsDir reviews as in 1a and 1b. > > Arrangements 3a and 3b: > AppsAWG gets a new apps-area-wg mailing list. > General Apps discussion is divided in 3 or 4 mailing lists by broad topics. > AppsDir reviews as in 1a and 1b. > > If you choose one of arrangements 3, please say how you would see the > general apps discussion divided. And, of course, suggest another > specific arrangement if you have one. > > I'll note that Andrew has specifically opined that the AppsDir reviews > DO belong with the general apps discussion... why are we bothering to > do apps reviews, he asks, if the reviews aren't of interest to the > apps area? > > Barry > _______________________________________________ > appsdir mailing list > appsdir@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/appsdir From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Mon May 21 14:56:44 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 B934521F85DB for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 14:56:44 -0700 (PDT) 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 4J6qz74wW0IJ for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 14:56:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E14621F85A5 for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 14:56:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.yitter.info (unknown [64.124.175.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0DFA21ECB41D; Mon, 21 May 2012 21:56:42 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 17:56:41 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: John C Klensin Message-ID: <20120521215637.GB1973@mail.yitter.info> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@elandnews.com> <5DF3B1C1-BFF3-467D-BD44-737A62F82D47@mnot.net> <03FF075B3438F66A5E239576@PST.JCK.COM> <20120521111107.GC703@mail.yitter.info> <2CE291CDD36D748211307081@PST.JCK.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2CE291CDD36D748211307081@PST.JCK.COM> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 21 May 2012 15:13:36 -0700 Cc: Tony Hansen , appsdir@ietf.org, S Moonesamy , Mark Nottingham , Barry Leiba , Stephen Farrell Subject: Re: [appsdir] Mailing list to discuss about Applications Area Directorate 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: Mon, 21 May 2012 21:56:44 -0000 Hi all, I'm sure not going to die on this hill, so this will be my last remark. On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 12:00:04PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote: > I think I would draw a boundary between interpreting "ought to > see" as "put it on the mailing list and hope that it makes > everyone read it" and "make it available" for those who are > interested. The logic behind the first could logically be > extended to argue that all such reviews should be copied to all Yes, and if we bought every slippery-slope argument, then we'd put everything on the IETF mailing list. But slippery-slope arguments are at least problematic. The point I was trying to make is that something that purports to be a statement on behalf of those with apps clue might we waved in front of the apps community to see whether it entices reactions to bad smells. If it's not supposed to be "from someone with apps clue" then eliminate the advertising clause. If the advert is to remain, then the community oughta take an interest. > Well, I think you are right about the expectation of special > treatment despite the disclaimers. But, especially if you are, > we are pretending really hard. Of course we're pretending really hard. The IETF just changed a 3-phase standards track to a 2-phase standards track in order to eliminate the 3d phase that nobody gets to because they don't get to the 2d phase. Humpty Dumpty'd be proud. But if reviews are going to come with an advertisement on the top about who sent them, then the processes are irrelevant: they get special treatment. If we don't want that, we should get rid of the adverts. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From john-ietf@jck.com Mon May 21 20:28:26 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 4A16521F84FC for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 20:28:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.46 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.46 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.139, 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 VUI4mDlgRjPn for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 20:28:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54B8C21F84FA for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 20:28:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [198.252.137.7] (helo=PST.JCK.COM) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1SWfg7-000Mv4-I4; Mon, 21 May 2012 23:22:31 -0400 Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 23:28:11 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Andrew Sullivan Message-ID: <18B34F3AA6B524D9AAB97A40@PST.JCK.COM> In-Reply-To: <20120521215637.GB1973@mail.yitter.info> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120517112851.0b2083c0@elandnews.com> <5DF3B1C1-BFF3-467D-BD44-737A62F82D47@mnot.net> <03FF075B3438F66A5E239576@PST.JCK.COM> <20120521111107.GC703@mail.yitter.info> <2CE291CDD36D748211307081@PST.JCK.COM> <20120521215637.GB1973@mail.yitter.info> 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 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 21 May 2012 20:40:59 -0700 Cc: Tony Hansen , appsdir@ietf.org, S Moonesamy , Mark Nottingham , Barry Leiba , Stephen Farrell Subject: Re: [appsdir] Mailing list to discuss about Applications Area Directorate 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: Tue, 22 May 2012 03:28:26 -0000 --On Monday, May 21, 2012 17:56 -0400 Andrew Sullivan wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm sure not going to die on this hill, so this will be my last > remark. And I unsubscribed from AppsDir earlier today. If I don't have time to follow the list properly without the traffic interfering with things I have much more need to follow, that seems a better remedy. Apps-Discuss is probably next -- I really need to focus on what I can do well given available time. > On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 12:00:04PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote: >> I think I would draw a boundary between interpreting "ought to >> see" as "put it on the mailing list and hope that it makes >> everyone read it" and "make it available" for those who are >> interested. The logic behind the first could logically be >> extended to argue that all such reviews should be copied to >> all > > Yes, and if we bought every slippery-slope argument, then we'd > put everything on the IETF mailing list. We already post all IETF Last Call reviews to the IETF list (read the announcement boilerplate) so, if this is a slippery slope argument, we may be sliding uphill. > But slippery-slope > arguments are at least problematic. The point I was trying to > make is that something that purports to be a statement on > behalf of those with apps clue might we waved in front of the > apps community to see whether it entices reactions to bad > smells. If it's not supposed to be "from someone with apps > clue" then eliminate the advertising clause. If the advert is > to remain, then the community oughta take an interest. You certainly aren't going to get me to argue that the advert and the "individual review" disclaimer are rationally consistent with each other. But, while you may accuse this of being a different slippery slope argument, if a review is to be considered "from the area" then it should be posted to some relevant area list only, comments collected, and then a revised/consensus version posted to the IETF list. >> Well, I think you are right about the expectation of special >> treatment despite the disclaimers. But, especially if you >> are, we are pretending really hard. > > Of course we're pretending really hard. The IETF just changed > a 3-phase standards track to a 2-phase standards track in > order to eliminate the 3d phase that nobody gets to because > they don't get to the 2d phase. Humpty Dumpty'd be proud. > But if reviews are going to come with an advertisement on the > top about who sent them, then the processes are irrelevant: > they get special treatment. If we don't want that, we should > get rid of the adverts. Or actually give an opportunity for a consolidated, ideally consensus, view to be expressed. john From msk@cloudmark.com Tue May 22 11:51:50 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 642A121F8672 for ; Tue, 22 May 2012 11:51:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 Ee2OxPjnvbI5 for ; Tue, 22 May 2012 11:51:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5035521F8631 for ; Tue, 22 May 2012 11:51:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.25]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id D6ri1j0010ZaKgw016riuH; Tue, 22 May 2012 11:51:48 -0700 X-CMAE-Match: 0 X-CMAE-Score: 0.00 X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=eMmRfQV1 c=1 sm=1 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:17 a=LvckAehuu68A:10 a=Gp0LT_fy6AwA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=b6nfwRhkAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=f6QBZBVeCI_P1ozfDKUA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=yMhMjlubAAAA:8 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=clQFuFiZWUaoYM8o-yQA:7 a=gKO2Hq4RSVkA:10 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10 a=hTZeC7Yk6K0A:10 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:117 Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::2524:76b6:a865:539c%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Tue, 22 May 2012 11:51:42 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "appsdir@ietf.org" , "apps-discuss@ietf.org" , "draft-polk-ipr-disclosure.all@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: AppsDir review of draft-polk-ipr-disclosure Thread-Index: Ac04S+0n6tY4XXwLSJu+kD08eI2VPg== Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 18:51:41 +0000 Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812C31D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812C31Dexchmbx901corpclo_" MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1337712708; bh=xMsv2f9/j8JGuLWgktCCHs/2mPHpIOlBoScJ9YdwQH0=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=DYMzQWdfh3YEBvNDiyEkOZLa5ulqoDbKVys0ZM05K/k3qndV4fBLAB1FNKmMqKsjp hPWS2r2sscTgT9uyCTCHxN7hP3xCArwa1wNopixbN1VVMy1xb/fkAk//lCGm41wK3D dY9uJ31ZWnkPUs/6lPTNFh9i+BtB6L7CSjdOvr/E= Cc: The IESG Subject: [appsdir] AppsDir review of draft-polk-ipr-disclosure 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, 22 May 2012 18:51:50 -0000 --_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812C31Dexchmbx901corpclo_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for this= draft. (For background on appsdir, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/= area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you m= ay receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD be= fore posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03 Title: Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Disclos= ure Rules Reviewer: Murray S. Kucherawy Review Date: May 22, 2012 IETF Last Call Date: ends May 28, 2012 IESG Telechat Date: not scheduled Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC, thoug= h I have a question about that proposed status. Major Issues: 1. Should this not be a BCP? Minor Issues: (none) Nits: 1. Section 1.1: s/section/Section/ Appendix A, several locations: a "&t;" entity should probably be "<". -MSK --_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812C31Dexchmbx901corpclo_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I have been selected as the Applications Area Direct= orate reviewer for this draft.  (For background on appsdir, please see= http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate)= .

 

Please resolve these comments along with any other L= ast Call comments you may receive.  Please wait for direction from you= r document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

 

Document: draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03

Title: Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Proper= ty Rights (IPR) Disclosure Rules

Reviewer: Murray S. Kucherawy

Review Date: May 22, 2012

IETF Last Call Date: ends May 28, 2012

IESG Telechat Date: not scheduled

 

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an I= nformational RFC, though I have a question about that proposed status.=

 

Major Issues:

 

1. Should this not be a BCP?

 

Minor Issues:

 

(none)

 

Nits:

 

1. Section 1.1: s/section/Section/

 

Appendix A, several locations: a "&t;"= entity should probably be "&lt;".

 

-MSK

--_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812C31Dexchmbx901corpclo_-- From sm@elandsys.com Tue May 22 11:58:53 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 1A6DC21F85DD for ; Tue, 22 May 2012 11:58:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.356 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.356 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.057, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 0fqgh48wJ+AS for ; Tue, 22 May 2012 11:58:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EB3021F85AC for ; Tue, 22 May 2012 11:58:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.234.13]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4MIvV8X002648 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 22 May 2012 11:57:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1337713073; i=@elandsys.com; bh=5/eT4n0VPVjdl6dTwSB4JM1EAfJW5w8nlx1lMXbWbUY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=34u2lPO3Yzbkl9vU897zhOivEaK0OXvMUdBjuaagf/IqNMfHNJpK2gfv/l1UxZRri Yl26mNPt85yRrgOdV7HvlN/CwjkAsGKl/yRrRs/Nh2eriK2KaXSyNRJCuzk5A+Rn8V Y54CCyLi88w3t/0HezLPbeMvoCuUTWo73I34k9Og= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1337713073; i=@elandsys.com; bh=5/eT4n0VPVjdl6dTwSB4JM1EAfJW5w8nlx1lMXbWbUY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=QzQPBBxN8R0ds8co/9rv2WYjLgzqMUhnVx0Y7FnlMXRTP81+ZqXtFvRatqQgSoT2u 3RPlyYE4+eRUR2tVPSILMJAxgGFVgpaIyu7hOFEjYHdNUrPWfa2OcKgMppuwhBNwSR 4tCqidvHzK57ivZfoY3pwqNVAUJafAX2Q8kn3jjk= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120522105424.08f4c0d0@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 11:25:13 -0700 To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" , Claudio Allocchio , Joseph Yee , =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_J=2E_D=FCrst=22?= , Salvatore Loreto , Enrico Marocco From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: [appsdir] Reminder for AppsDir assignment 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, 22 May 2012 18:58:53 -0000 Hello, This is a early reminder about pending AppsDir assignments for requests sent out around May 11. I'll list the latest date for the assignment to be posted. May 22: draft-ietf-ledbat-congestion-09 - Vijay (The IESG evaluation is on May 24) June 1: draft-ietf-6man-lineid-04 - Joseph (IESG evaluation date not available) draft-farrell-decade-ni-06 - Martin (IESG evaluation date not available) draft-ietf-avtcore-monarch-13 - Sal (IESG evaluation date not available) draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpmss-04 - Enrico (Last call ends on May 30) draft-ietf-codec-opus-14 - Claudio (IESG Evaluation date is June 7 - Claudio talked to me about when this would be done) Best regards, -sm From msk@cloudmark.com Tue May 22 12:29:16 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 4D99721F8603 for ; Tue, 22 May 2012 12:29:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 xrn4kx3tCWAg for ; Tue, 22 May 2012 12:29:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8C6221F861B for ; Tue, 22 May 2012 12:29:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.25]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id D7V81j0010ZaKgw017V88Z; Tue, 22 May 2012 12:29:14 -0700 X-CMAE-Match: 0 X-CMAE-Score: 0.00 X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=MOXiabll c=1 sm=1 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:17 a=LvckAehuu68A:10 a=tW-MbUlgjnYA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=b6nfwRhkAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=MyGv9lGy6Q9Q_txqXdIA:9 a=VCJtbqagdy6BOqjxSGkA:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=yMhMjlubAAAA:8 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=b3BTyJyJP9abWqdYutoA:7 a=gKO2Hq4RSVkA:10 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10 a=hTZeC7Yk6K0A:10 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:117 Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::2524:76b6:a865:539c%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Tue, 22 May 2012 12:29:08 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "appsdir@ietf.org" , "apps-discuss@ietf.org" , "draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions.all@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: AppsDir review of draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions Thread-Index: Ac04USeQYm22A7SkRxuKYqnrCiYROg== Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 19:29:07 +0000 Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812C442@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812C442exchmbx901corpclo_" MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1337714954; bh=HXytoW7AqNc3HfPbqq4xNE9dTpQqSwDjiNnPkORaynA=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=fKuM+qxk1eWqe6LKxGDKVMAzB5GmpMz8DbTX6SZe99onwoubHoj62nMMv9gnAC6y/ PMpm+2LIHA7uX6GrU3l2jCG1jMOzRaKwbNVObQRfygXpGbn54q+2uDzqgbb1UjQ7PZ VfeuIL1cIKU8PV7stoA6FObZlREUZpORiHIqCGFI= Cc: The IESG Subject: [appsdir] AppsDir review of draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions 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, 22 May 2012 19:29:16 -0000 --_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812C442exchmbx901corpclo_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for this= draft (for background on appsdir, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/a= rea/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you m= ay receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD bef= ore posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-farresnickel-ipr-sanctions Title: Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy Reviewer: Murray S. Kucherawy Review Date: May 22, 2012 IETF Last Call Date: ends June 4, 2012 IESG Telechat Date: not scheduled Summary: This document is ready for publication as an Informational documen= t, modulo my two issues for discussion below. Major Issues: 1. Should this not be a BCP? The polk draft describes ways to encourage co= mpliance, while this one talks about penalties for non-compliance. That se= ems too severe for Informational status, while the polk draft can probably = get away with it. Minor Issues: 1. Are all the URL references in here permanent? I'm not sure about things= like [URLIESGIPR], for example, since it points to a wiki. Nits: 1. Section 1, second-last paragraph: There should be a comma after [RFC3683= ]. 2. Section 1, last paragraph: There should be a comma after "but important"= . 3. Section 2.4: s/to be clearly understood/to be understood clearly/ 4. Section 2.4, last paragraph needs a period at the end. 5. Section 3: s/smooth-running/smooth running/ 6. Section 4, bullet b: Add a comma after "private". 7. Section 4, bullet j: Missing an ending period. 8. Appendix A: s/last calls be held/last calls been held/ --_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812C442exchmbx901corpclo_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate r= eviewer for this draft (for background on appsdir, please see  http://= trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Cal= l comments you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document sh= epherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-farresnickel-ipr-sanctions
Title: Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy<= br> Reviewer: Murray S. Kucherawy
Review Date: May 22, 2012
IETF Last Call Date: ends June 4, 2012
IESG Telechat Date: not scheduled

Summary: This document is ready for publication as an Infor= mational document, modulo my two issues for discussion below.

Major Issues:

1. Should this not be a BCP?  The polk draft describes= ways to encourage compliance, while this one talks about penalties for non= -compliance.  That seems too severe for Informational status, while the polk draft can probably get away with it.

Minor Issues:

1. Are all the URL references in here permanent?  I= 217;m not sure about things like [URLIESGIPR], for example, since it points= to a wiki.

Nits:

1. Section 1, second-last paragraph: There should be= a comma after [RFC3683].

 

2. Section 1, last paragraph: There should be a comm= a after “but important”.

 

3. Section 2.4: s/to be clearly understood/to be und= erstood clearly/

 

4. Section 2.4, last paragraph needs a period at the= end.

 

5. Section 3: s/smooth-running/smooth running/<= /o:p>

 

6. Section 4, bullet b: Add a comma after “pri= vate”.

 

7. Section 4, bullet j: Missing an ending period.

 

8. Appendix A: s/last calls be held/last calls been = held/

 

--_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812C442exchmbx901corpclo_-- From barryleiba@gmail.com Tue May 22 12:32:35 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 B1C6521F8577; Tue, 22 May 2012 12:32:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.835 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.835 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.142, 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 z+soZHA0LuDL; Tue, 22 May 2012 12:32:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gg0-f172.google.com (mail-gg0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1841521F851B; Tue, 22 May 2012 12:32:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ggnc4 with SMTP id c4so6799664ggn.31 for ; Tue, 22 May 2012 12:32:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; 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=gp/N0Q4tNHKFyx5eIvEMpP7nLqQEnxWQdJeBOoWD2wI=; b=U8CZC4ZshJ0w1gZY2pfeZgOA9wu9CB60gMHaQmnsULwjtMkoTH5o3A4s2OMNj8DNxD vzZ2O6JK0CFa34niSRhNA/KBBnosTgCfi4EEQNXkOftg5M43yzZuIDz6FNI/mvg32d8n 9pn96eQecp6yXcelJ3SscgrWGWAtGy3M1BBxDNwgOU3llBm1sgv1UPCidCNbljygvez/ 9A6E4PkuGA7kpuVFA+3K2SqGt0P+I149l1DbzcP5Q3nWxb0Y+aMTHnRU3md6Xx019MMI zsZhUMxWwcOVHYdA9J0LY1V5GGBn45do4/cLSEyXkKfZUledZD2jo/E04aB1Cp+Z+qwi Es4Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.4.165 with SMTP id l5mr23584967oel.41.1337715154367; Tue, 22 May 2012 12:32:34 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.60.10.68 with HTTP; Tue, 22 May 2012 12:32:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812C442@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812C442@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 15:32:34 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: zSYBJRUHefp4ncoXvsv53KpcsAM Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions.all@tools.ietf.org" , "appsdir@ietf.org" , The IESG , "apps-discuss@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [appsdir] AppsDir review of draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions 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, 22 May 2012 19:32:35 -0000 > 1. Should this not be a BCP?=A0 The polk draft describes ways to encourag= e > compliance, while this one talks about penalties for non-compliance.=A0 T= hat > seems too severe for Informational status, while the polk draft can proba= bly > get away with it. I'm pretty sure this one should NOT be a BCP. Remember that it doesn't change ANY procedure or process. It just points out alternatives that are already available. Barry From sm@elandsys.com Tue May 22 23:27:38 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 6343821F8541 for ; Tue, 22 May 2012 23:27:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.099, 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 OFy6erROmSGR for ; Tue, 22 May 2012 23:27:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DD1121F8514 for ; Tue, 22 May 2012 23:27:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.237.143]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4N6RI4d001464 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 22 May 2012 23:27:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1337754453; i=@elandsys.com; bh=038gjUVA6AGnqiGX63C8AzNRTiKpkq3zgpuU0mchPwg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=W9bOCa0JGlneue5PLhyxLzqtxmIdPvx7O3TZK46nrbzwamUeySQA4AWhtoCZ6jLzF 6oHf6yzmUenqUGdqfir/qC6Yhu944/6IkofUrN1s3L0Lqr87ojm6/kb2lHfLWSixmJ jIVWPS1Dr7zwUK7lhbDEsJzaIsTnXLklQXRGXIJI= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1337754453; i=@elandsys.com; bh=038gjUVA6AGnqiGX63C8AzNRTiKpkq3zgpuU0mchPwg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=wfb3SdO+2ABq1FMyRH6xq6ID1skN4/61IqnGmEt0SwCCc0ILJ4Txsz6jVtyJGpAW7 2yuDOoySi6UvQmFlw7G/YyelkbSpCmTQze62mkkLhlJLE3iet1KjerK0Xr4k3v2RFP q7LVGtsxd79d3vMDKsGD/n2bBisZr2pGlNYHsMAM= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120519222849.09bf56c8@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 23:15:57 -0700 To: appsdir@ietf.org From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [appsdir] Applications Area Directorate Review Process 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, 23 May 2012 06:27:38 -0000 Hello, I made some changes to the Applications Area Directorate Review Process. The process is documented at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/AppsDirReview Reviews should be available by the Friday before IESG Evaluation. This is so that the Apps ADs have sufficient time to consider your review and for the authors to have time to address the issues you identify. Please try to keep "APPSDIR review of draft-name-version-num" in the subject line to facilitate message filtering. I tweaked the criteria for major issues to application-related concerns as the objective is to provide an application perspective. You have the discretion to list any other type of issue, e.g. security, DNS, IPv6, etc. as major. Minor issues are issues for which you are recommending a change, e.g. advice or discussion which is missing from the draft, text that is unclear or confusing. Nits are generally editorial, typographical errors, etc. There isn't a clear boundary between text which is unclear (minor issue) and editorial nits. Some document shepherds may blindly agree with your recommendation. Some authors have been writing RFCs for over a decade. You should expect that they will push back on some of the changes you recommend especially if the recommendations are of an editorial nature. If you are taking some of the review discussion off-list, please copy the message to me. If your review might end up being controversial, please notify me before the start of the hostilities. :-) If you have any concerns about the lack of feedback or the review has not been given any consideration, please let me know. It is important to avoid any perception of conflict of interest. I leave it to you to notify me if I missed anything, e.g. the author and you share a common affiliation, you contributed to the draft previously, there was previously a conflict between the author/document shepherd and you. I always post a notification to appsdir@ if I take on an assignment. If you are interested in reviewing a draft, let me know. Best regards, -sm From stpeter@stpeter.im Thu May 24 08:02:16 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 DA7FC21F8672 for ; Thu, 24 May 2012 08:02:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.588 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.011, 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 4Gar8AnvOFqT for ; Thu, 24 May 2012 08:02:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 581B421F8649 for ; Thu, 24 May 2012 08:02:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [64.101.72.115] (unknown [64.101.72.115]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 64E744005A; Thu, 24 May 2012 09:18:24 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4FBE48FE.4080709@stpeter.im> Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 08:43:10 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SM References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120519222849.09bf56c8@elandnews.com> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120519222849.09bf56c8@elandnews.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: appsdir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [appsdir] Applications Area Directorate Review Process 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, 24 May 2012 15:02:17 -0000 SM, I'd just like to thank you for your excellent management of our little team. On 5/23/12 12:15 AM, SM wrote: > Hello, > > I made some changes to the Applications Area Directorate Review > Process. The process is documented at > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/AppsDirReview > > Reviews should be available by the Friday before IESG Evaluation. This > is so that the Apps ADs have sufficient time to consider your review and > for the authors to have time to address the issues you identify. > > Please try to keep "APPSDIR review of draft-name-version-num" in the > subject line to facilitate message filtering. > > I tweaked the criteria for major issues to application-related concerns > as the objective is to provide an application perspective. You have the > discretion to list any other type of issue, e.g. security, DNS, IPv6, > etc. as major. > > Minor issues are issues for which you are recommending a change, e.g. > advice or discussion which is missing from the draft, text that is > unclear or confusing. > > Nits are generally editorial, typographical errors, etc. > > There isn't a clear boundary between text which is unclear (minor issue) > and editorial nits. Some document shepherds may blindly agree with your > recommendation. Some authors have been writing RFCs for over a decade. > You should expect that they will push back on some of the changes you > recommend especially if the recommendations are of an editorial nature. > > If you are taking some of the review discussion off-list, please copy > the message to me. If your review might end up being controversial, > please notify me before the start of the hostilities. :-) If you have > any concerns about the lack of feedback or the review has not been given > any consideration, please let me know. > > It is important to avoid any perception of conflict of interest. I > leave it to you to notify me if I missed anything, e.g. the author and > you share a common affiliation, you contributed to the draft previously, > there was previously a conflict between the author/document shepherd and > you. > > I always post a notification to appsdir@ if I take on an assignment. If > you are interested in reviewing a draft, let me know. > > Best regards, > -sm > > _______________________________________________ > appsdir mailing list > appsdir@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/appsdir From sm@elandsys.com Wed May 30 12:34:36 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 1814C11E8135 for ; Wed, 30 May 2012 12:34:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.53 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.069, 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 E3z6Xz62ltZG for ; Wed, 30 May 2012 12:34:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CDE511E8134 for ; Wed, 30 May 2012 12:34:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.239.127]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4UJYMlM029120 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 30 May 2012 12:34:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1338406473; i=@elandsys.com; bh=r1iRl2YBL3hekdKCiv+BGH1GzANGb4enh/6HsMWY+O0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=CH1BcuiPy/vCvmRhrbmJqKj6Dok2EQs0UazlzECEzHJsPwOHuJBGG26ucf/lWoa7y YZ04fWwmtBV3ChtmyHgQWh/CLVF1cz1JBcmyNzmvPRXJ2foVTCLmglCIKqt5a7XP/5 1QwVS7XW8bRotlHJxInrJnEaft2FfsRI3h3jlV/Y= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1338406473; i=@elandsys.com; bh=r1iRl2YBL3hekdKCiv+BGH1GzANGb4enh/6HsMWY+O0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=r6/T8ewRWKUuOkt9ths0cU6M4TZQnX37fU3sHRInnNYrY/bH3BtrGA3cPIQc6qv8E 28DwPWBfdf28f1mVchNW6wlWbcBRPWPj11ugqv83Hx4j8APohKTDAGhJ6jFuQlfS2R ZaYLwJa4RVeYw+euZLXrrLrH2wA8ZAFRx35iPtNo= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120530121750.0b5a9910@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 12:33:55 -0700 To: appsdir@ietf.org From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [appsdir] List of drafts for review 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, 30 May 2012 19:34:36 -0000 Hello, Here's the tentative list of drafts for review: draft-ietf-grow-simple-va-08 draft-ietf-krb-wg-kdc-model-12 draft-ietf-pim-ecmp-03 draft-ietf-pim-pop-count-06 draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-implementation-04 draft-ietf-dime-rfc4005bis-09 draft-ietf-idr-rfc4893bis-06 draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis-09 draft-vegoda-cotton-rfc5735bis-02 As a reminder, let me know if you have any preference to take or not to take one of the above as an assignment. Best regards, -sm