Thank you. -Ekr
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:06 AM, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 11:49 AM, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > > No worries. Looking forward to your thoughts on my comments. > > > > Me too! I've created a repo > (https://github.com/wkumari/effect-encrypt) where I'll be placing the > new version to all for easier viewing / diffs. > > W > > > > -Ekr > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 8:00 AM, Kathleen Moriarty > > <kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Sorry, I wasn’t able to task switch to editing the document yesterday > with > >> other work obligations. > >> > >> Best, > >> Kathleen > >> > >> Sent from my mobile device > >> > >> On Feb 28, 2018, at 9:45 AM, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> > wrote: > >>> > >>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 3:28 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF > >>> <spencerdawkins.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > Hi, Benoit, > >>> > > >>> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com> > >>> > wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> The way I see it, we're going to fix comments forever. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > Right. But my concern was that the text that we're reading for an > >>> > up/down > >>> > vote can change after we read it, so I should be tracking the > proposed > >>> > text > >>> > changes. > >>> > >>> [ Updating in the middle of the thread as this seems the logical entry > >>> point ] > >>> > >>> ... so, we are not updating the current version (we wanted 7 days for > >>> people to read it), and so will be (I believe) balloting on that -- > >>> but, just like any other document we ballot on, the RAD will pay > >>> attention to comments received and "Do the right thing". > >>> > >>> I believe that EKRs comments are helpful, and Kathleen hopes to > >>> address / incorporate them before the call. I will be putting both the > >>> current (being balloted on) and updated version in GitHub (for a > >>> friendly web enabled diff) so that people can see what the final > >>> version will actually look like. > >>> So, I guess we are formally balloting (unless the DISCUSS is cleared) > >>> on the text as written (-22), but with an understanding that the AD > >>> will make it look like the version in GitHub before taking off the > >>> Approved, Revised ID needed / AD follow-up flag. > >>> > >>> Confused yet? :-P > >> > >> > >> Hi Warren, > >> > >> Thanks for this note. > >> > >> It's too bad that we aren't able to see the proposed revisions at this > >> point, but I appreciate your commitment to working through the > >> remaining issues, and I think we should be able to reach a > >> satisfactory resolution. In the interest of not forcing everyone to > >> read the document by tomorrow, I'm going to change my ballot to > >> Abstain. > >> > >> Best, > >> -Ekr > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > That doesn't seem up/down. It seems like every other draft I've > >>> > balloted on > >>> > as an AD :-) > >>> > > >>> > >>> Indeed. > >>> W > >>> > >>> > Spencer > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> >> And we need to resolve this one before the current ADs step down. > >>> >> > >>> >> Regards, Benoit > >>> >> > >>> >> This may not be my week, when it comes to comprehension. At least, > I'm > >>> >> 0 > >>> >> for 2 so far today. > >>> >> > >>> >> Are we still tuning text in this draft? > >>> >> > >>> >> https://www.ietf.org/standards/process/iesg-ballots/ says that the > >>> >> alternate balloting procedure is an up/down vote - we either agree > to > >>> >> publish, or agree to send a document off for rework. > >>> >> > >>> >> If we're still resolving comments, one can imagine that we'd get to > a > >>> >> one-Discuss situation, or even no Discusses, and wouldn't be doing > an > >>> >> Alternate Ballot on Thursday. > >>> >> > >>> >> I don't object to resolving comments (actually, I find that lovely), > >>> >> but I > >>> >> don't know what we're doing. > >>> >> > >>> >> I've never seen the alternate balloting procedure executed (either > as > >>> >> IESG > >>> >> scribe or as an IESG member), so maybe I don't get it, and other > >>> >> people have > >>> >> different expectations. > >>> >> > >>> >> Spencer > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> _______________________________________________ > >>> >> OPSAWG mailing list > >>> >> OPSAWG@ietf.org > >>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > _______________________________________________ > >>> > OPSAWG mailing list > >>> > OPSAWG@ietf.org > >>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad > >>> idea in the first place. > >>> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing > >>> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair > >>> of pants. > >>> ---maf > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad > idea in the first place. > This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing > regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair > of pants. > ---maf >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
