Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-iasa2-consolidated-upd-07.txt> (Consolidated IASA 2.0 Updates of IETF Administrative Terminology) to Best Current Practice

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Speaking as IASA2 WG co-chair, we are not trying to be unresponsive - it has been just a few days and we're well within the LC timeframe. Your email hit my inbox mid-day on Thursday, and I did not work over this past weekend. Now that I am at work again today (Monday morning for me), I will take a look at your email to the IASA2 WG mailing list.

Regards
Jason

On 3/17/19, 10:07 PM, "ietf on behalf of Alissa Cooper" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of alissa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

    Hi SM,
    
    A lack of response after three days’ time, two days of which are over a weekend, is not “unresponsive.” The last call for this document expires on April 1. I expect all the last call comments will be responded to in a timely fashion during or after the last call.
    
    Alissa
    
    > On Mar 17, 2019, at 3:35 PM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
    > 
    > Dear IETF Chair,
    > 
    > I am contacting you as, from what I understand, you are the Responsible Area Director for the IASA2 Working Group.  A few days ago, i sent an email to the IASA20 Working Group Chairs as the editor of draft-ietf-iasa2-consolidated-upd-07 pointed out that he may not be the appropriate contact to respond to the Last Call comments which I sent.  The IASA20 Working Group Chairs did not respond to the comments.
    > 
    > I took a quick look at the working group mailing list and noticed that the communication style [1] followed is tailored for participants from the United States of America.  I read the letter [2] from 2013 in which the question of the "legitimacy of the IETF as an International Standards Development Organization" was raised.  I would like it to be clear that I am not requesting any action on that as it is not within my responsibilities to work on such matters within an IETF context.
    > 
    > According to Section 6.5.1 of RFC 2026, "a person who disagrees with a Working Group recommendation shall always first discuss the matter with the Working Group's chair(s)".  It is unfortunately not possible for me to have such a discussion when the IASA20 Working Group Chairs are unresponsive.   As such, I am bringing this matter to your attention.
    > 
    > Regards,
    > S. Moonesamy
    > 
    > 1. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/EERzQooyonx-d95vtTod4uYQpfw
    > 2. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ylAGDDpDDmcEyaNHpudF4Zqlqs4
    > 
    





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux