Subject: [spfbis] Revised I-D of draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 10:00:08 -0700

Hi Scott,

Could you please post a revised I-D for draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis?

Pete Resnick, as Area Director, is okay with the text at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg04161.html 
There's also the text from Barry Leiba's messages as Area Director 
(see 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg04150.html and 
the other messages on that thread).

I'll go over the comments from the other Area Directors and we can 
work from -20.  There will be editorial changes to address those 
comments and the feedback from participants.

As a general note to the SPFBIS WG the document will be on the IESG 
telechat on September 26.  It would be good if all the changes can be 
settled by September 19 so that the IESG has ample time for its review.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd)

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 13:53:49 -0400

>Could you please post a revised I-D for draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis?

I can, probably in about 10 hours.  I'll be able to give more detailed email replies then too.

Scott K

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 14:56:32 -0500

> settled by September 19 so that the IESG has ample time for its review.

A little note on this, especially if you happen to follow the 
sausage-making that is the IESG process:

The IESG was satisfied that all of the assorted Last Call comments and 
IESG comments were being addressed (as well as can be expected) in the 
upcoming new version of the draft. Normally, the IESG conditionally 
approves documents in that state, leaving it to the sponsoring AD to 
double-check before final approval. But there were a *lot* of comments 
and controversy regarding this document. So I offered to put the 
document back as a returning item on the next IESG agenda so that the 
IESG could confirm that all of the changes were in. I expect there to be 
no blocking ballots after -20 comes out, and then it's just a matter of 
SM and I confirming all of the changes for the IESG to sign off on. An 
out-of-the-ordinary step, but not unprecedented and nothing to be 
concerned about. The IESG discussion of the document went very well.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 21:28:31 -0400

> Could you please post a revised I-D for draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis?

In retrospect, it wasn't 100% clear if I'm supposed to post -20 as the last 
interim diff I sent to the list or work on other outstanding comments first.  In 
the interest of being conservative, I'm posting -20 just as I last sent it to 
the list.

Scott K

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 18:52:40 -0700

Hi Scott,
>the interest of being conservative, I'm posting -20 just as I last sent it to

It's okay.  Let's work from draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-20.

Before I forget Appendix A will have to be moved into a section (Pete 
Resnick commented about that previously).

Regards,

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 23:53:22 -0400

On Thursday, September 12, 2013 18:52:40 S Moonesamy wrote:
> >the interest of being conservative, I'm posting -20 just as I last sent it
> >to the list.
> 

Attached (diff from the last diff, not from -20).

Scott K