Re: Interim Meeting

["James Seng/Personal" <James@Seng.cc>]

Scott,

Claim what you like about the IETF process. I cannot deny that you have
follow the process and I thank you for that.

But the facts remains that a lot of registries have not read your I-D.
So the question is "Are you interested in their feedback?" or "Are you
more interested to follow process and get your I-D thru?"

-James Seng

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
To: <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2001 11:40 PM
Subject: RE: Interim Meeting


> James,
>
> The fact that the requirements document was published as an I-D speaks
for
> itself WRT the intended review community.  If my desire was for review
only
> by the customers of VeriSign-GRS it wouldn't have been published as an
I-D.
>
>
> What I have said is that this document has been available for review
to the
> IETF community at large since March 2000.  It is completely incorrect
for
> anyone to say that they haven't had an opportunity to review this
draft.
> Assertions to the contrary are baseless.
>
> Let me be clear about what I mean: the requirements draft has been out
for
> broad IETF review for 10+ months.  If people are only now taking
notice
> because we are forming a WG, it would be more productive to stop
complaining
> and get comments in _now_ than to insist that there hasn't been ample
time
> for review.
>
> <Scott/>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Seng/Personal [mailto:James@Seng.cc]
> Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2001 10:23 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott; ietf-provreg@cafax.se
> Subject: Re: Interim Meeting
>
>
> Scott,
>
> I am not against the interim meeting and in fact, I think it is a good
> idea. It is a pity (or perhaps lucky) I wont be able to attend it.
>
> Your reqs spec has been published as an individual I-D, largely
ignored
> by the other community because they see it as primarly NSI focus with
> your registrars. I know you it wasnt meant to be but that is the
> perspective share by others.
>
> Now, if it is a WG I-D, i think we need to go out and correct the
> perspection that it is not just an NSI I-D. It is beyond that and it
is
> going to come back haunt them if they dont take note now.
>
> Your I-D will make great input to this going-to-be WG. But as an WG
I-D,
> I think it is safe to safe to say that we need more reviews beyond
your
> registrars. I am sure the other registries have their comments too so
> why not hear them out?
>
> Unless of course you mean you couldnt care less about what the rest of
> the registries thinks...in that case, I shall rest my case.