[Top] [All Lists]

Re: IONs & discuss criteria

2008-03-06 14:52:27
"Lakshminath" == Lakshminath Dondeti <ldondeti(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> 

    Lakshminath> Cullen,
    Lakshminath> Thank you for your statement that you are keen to make sure 
    Lakshminath> DISCUSSes are within the parameters of the discuss criteria 
    Lakshminath> appreciate it.  Perhaps I am naive or my understanding of the 
    Lakshminath> language is poor (they are both probably true), but could you 
    Lakshminath> how one of your most recent DISCUSSes:

    Lakshminath> "Cullen Jennings:

    Lakshminath> Discuss [2008-03-05]:
    Lakshminath> There has been a lot of discussion about keying modes for
    Lakshminath> SRTP, so I'm glad to see a document that covers this topic
    Lakshminath> for MIKEY. For that reason, I think it's really important
    Lakshminath> to get this right. It looks to me like some of the issues
    Lakshminath> EKR raises need to be fixed in order to achieve that."

Presumably Cullen is agreeing with the discuss position that I'm
holding and that Russ is holding.  If Cullen plans to hold his discuss
position past the resolution of Russ's discuss (Russ has agreed to
take on mine), then I agree his discuss is inappropriate.  I'm not sure that 
Cullen made the best use of the tool, but I'm not sure he did anything wrong 
either.  I believe
that my discuss is consistent with the discuss criteria because while
it is based on an external review, I've explained what parts of the
review I consider blocking.  I haven't read Russ's discuss.  I believe
that if he selected what parts of the review he considers are a valid
discuss,or if he simply asked you to respond to Eric's comments
(saying that he believes last call discussion is still ongoing), then
it is a valid discuss.  The second discuss (please respond to Eric and
conclude the last call discussion) is a process discuss not a content
discuss; he would be asking you to actually engage in a discussion.
If he later believed that Tim had incorrectly evaluated the consensus
of that discussion, he might change his position to another process
discuss about a consensus problem.

IETF mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>