Hi, sure, the idea is to finish the discussions. If the conclusion is that there is no need to significantly change the draft, then a new IETF LC will not be needed.
Cheers, Gonzalo On 25/09/2014 2:15 PM, Rene Hummen wrote: > Thanks Ted for clarifying. > > On 25 Sep 2014, at 14:49, Gonzalo Camarillo <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Thanks for your note, Ted. >> >> Group, approving this draft now and starting a new "tris" draft right >> away does not really make sense. Shall we give Tom a couple of weeks to >> put together a revision of the draft and then go through a new IETF LC >> and IESG evaluation? >> >> As Ted said, this new process would be easier since the diff would not >> be that large. > > Should we first agree that we indeed want to separate the HIT suite ID from > the OGA ID and that a simple clarification of how a HIT suite ID maps to an > OGA ID does not suffice? The latter would probably be a minor edit that could > still be fixed without starting a new evaluation round. > >> On 25/09/2014 1:35 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: >>> On Sep 25, 2014, at 8:24 AM, Rene Hummen >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> just wondering if the decision was made for us, as RFC5201-bis was >>>> approved yesterday: >>> >>> The kind of deliberation that you are doing post-IESG-approval on a draft >>> really isn't appropriate. If there is an error in the draft, you should >>> certainly tell me you need to fix it. But if you are having a policy >>> debate about something that wasn't resolved prior to the end of working >>> group last call and IETF last call, I'm afraid it really belongs in a -bis >>> document. And that's what this discussion looks like to me. >>> >>> That said, the reason I approved the document yesterday was because when I >>> went hunting through my email for comments relating to the review of the >>> document, I didn't find any, because this discussion hasn't been referring >>> to the document. If there is some *appropriate* fix that needs to be made >>> to the document, I can pull it out of the RFC editor queue or we can >>> address it during AUTH48. But the sort of changes that would be >>> appropriate in that context are quite restricted. >>> >>> In order to make substantive changes that represent a new working group >>> consensus, we would have to do a new last call and re-review it in the >>> IESG. I expect that could be done quite expeditiously if the working >>> group decided it was necessary, but you need to tell me now if that's what >>> you want. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Hipsec mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec >>> >>> >> > > -- > Dipl.-Inform. Rene Hummen, Ph.D. Student > Chair of Communication and Distributed Systems > RWTH Aachen University, Germany > tel: +49 241 80 21426 > web: http://www.comsys.rwth-aachen.de/team/rene-hummen/ > _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
