Gen-ART LC review of draft-leiba-5322upd-from-group-06

2012-10-17 Thread Roni Even
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at . Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-leiba-5322upd-from-group-06

RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787bis-05

2012-10-17 Thread Roni Even
Andy, Thanks Roni From: Malis, Andrew G (Andy) [mailto:andrew.g.ma...@verizon.com] Sent: 09 October, 2012 2:55 AM To: Roni Even; draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787bis@tools.ietf.org Cc: ietf@ietf.org; gen-...@ietf.org; Malis, Andrew G (Andy) Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc57

Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-leiba-5322upd-from-group-06

2012-10-17 Thread ned+ietf
> Minor issues: > 1.It is not clear from the draft what the use case for using the group > construct is. Section 3 talks about the issues with using the group > construct and recommend limited use, but this is the only information. The main driver for this work is to add support for EAI down

Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-leiba-5322upd-from-group-06

2012-10-17 Thread Dave Crocker
On 10/17/2012 10:49 AM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote: Minor issues: 1. It is not clear from the draft what the use case for using the group construct is. Section 3 talks about the issues with using the group construct and recommend limited use, but this is the only information. T

Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-leiba-5322upd-from-group-06

2012-10-17 Thread ned+ietf
On 10/17/2012 10:49 AM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote: >> Minor issues: > >> 1. It is not clear from the draft what the use case for using the group >> construct is. Section 3 talks about the issues with using the group >> construct and recommend limited use, but this is the only inform

Re: Antitrust FAQ

2012-10-17 Thread John C Klensin
Hi. A separate conversation stirred up memories of the ones at ANSI from long ago and suggests something else that should be added to the list: * A protocol specification that has the appearance of being solely the product of a single vendor or other organization is inherently dangerous and dange

Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-leiba-5322upd-from-group-06

2012-10-17 Thread John C Klensin
--On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 12:00 -0700 ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote: >> A single sentence summarizing what benefit is achieved with >> the change, along with a couple of usage examples, would go a >> long way towards showing how this update helps in practical >> ways. > > I could live

Re: Antitrust FAQ

2012-10-17 Thread George Willingmyre
Hello John ... it would help me better understand your proposal in an antitrust context if you elaborated to what you are referring at ANSI. Could it be the text about use of trademarks in standards in the 2008 ANSI Guidelines on Embedded Trademark http://publicaa.ansi.org/sites/apdl/Document

Re: Antitrust FAQ

2012-10-17 Thread Dave Crocker
On 10/17/2012 12:23 PM, John C Klensin wrote: * A protocol specification that has the appearance of being solely the product of a single vendor or other organization is inherently dangerous and dangerous to the IETF, not just the particants. Problems can arise if a standards body rubber-stamps

Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-leiba-5322upd-from-group-06

2012-10-17 Thread Dave Crocker
On 10/17/2012 12:27 PM, John C Klensin wrote: --On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 12:00 -0700 ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote: A single sentence summarizing what benefit is achieved with the change, along with a couple of usage examples, would go a long way towards showing how this update hel

Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-leiba-5322upd-from-group-06

2012-10-17 Thread John C Klensin
--On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 13:26 -0700 Dave Crocker wrote: >... A single sentence summarizing what benefit is achieved with the change, along with a couple of usage examples, would go a long way towards showing how this update helps in practical ways. >>> >>> I could

Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-leiba-5322upd-from-group-06

2012-10-17 Thread ned+ietf
> --On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 12:00 -0700 > ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote: > >> A single sentence summarizing what benefit is achieved with > >> the change, along with a couple of usage examples, would go a > >> long way towards showing how this update helps in practical > >> ways. > > >

Re: Antitrust FAQ

2012-10-17 Thread John C Klensin
--On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 13:06 -0700 Dave Crocker wrote: > If a spec has broad support, it doesn't matter where it came > from. If a spec does not have broad support, it doesn't > matter where it came from. > > The essential concern is reviewing initial and continuing > support. It's

Re: Antitrust FAQ

2012-10-17 Thread Stephen Farrell
On 10/17/2012 08:23 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > * A protocol specification that has the appearance of being > solely the product of a single vendor or other organization is > inherently dangerous and dangerous to the IETF, not just the > particants. Problems can arise if a standards body rubber-st

Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-leiba-5322upd-from-group-06

2012-10-17 Thread Dave Crocker
On 10/17/2012 2:32 PM, Ned Freed wrote: Channeling my inner Maslow, I see the present text as best, an additional sentence or two as next best, a sentence and a cite to the downgrade doc next in line, and including actual EAI examples in this doc as the worst choice. The problem I have with

Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-leiba-5322upd-from-group-06

2012-10-17 Thread Barry Leiba
>> Channeling my inner Maslow, I see the present text as best, an additional >> sentence or two as next best, a sentence and a cite to the downgrade doc >> next in line, and including actual EAI examples in this doc as the worst >> choice. > > The problem I have with the current text is that it say

Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-leiba-5322upd-from-group-06

2012-10-17 Thread ned+ietf
On 10/17/2012 2:32 PM, Ned Freed wrote: > Channeling my inner Maslow, I see the present text as best, an additional > sentence or two as next best, a sentence and a cite to the downgrade doc next > in line, and including actual EAI examples in this doc as the worst choice. The problem I hav

Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-leiba-5322upd-from-group-06

2012-10-17 Thread Dave Crocker
On 10/17/2012 5:18 PM, Ned Freed wrote: If you really think this is important to explain why we're making this change against the overall context of RFC 5322 - and I most certainly do not agree that it is important to do so - then the best "use case" to add is the negative one: The elimination

Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-leiba-5322upd-from-group-06

2012-10-17 Thread ned+ietf
> >> Channeling my inner Maslow, I see the present text as best, an additional > >> sentence or two as next best, a sentence and a cite to the downgrade doc > >> next in line, and including actual EAI examples in this doc as the worst > >> choice. > > > > The problem I have with the current text is