Subject: [COSE] Spencer Dawkins' Block on charter-ietf-cose-01-00: (with BLOCK)

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 20:18:51 -0700

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-cose-01-00: Block

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-cose/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
BLOCK:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It doesn't look like this has been revised since it was sent for external
review yet, has it? I noticed that Suresh's question about IRTF documents and
about "ANAMA" hasn't resulted in either replies or text changes.

I'm sure this will be a very short-lived BLOCK, which are the best kind of
BLOCK ...

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 06:50:52 -0700

I think there's just some process confusion. I didn't explicitly send it to
external review. Maybe I just agreed on the call and forgot?

I am happy to make these changes now or can make them and send it back or
whatever....

-Ekr

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 23:30:29 -0500

On 10/24/18 8:50 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> I think there's just some process confusion. I didn't explicitly send 
> it to external review. Maybe I just agreed on the call and forgot?

It went to external review:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/HLFfvE8H2WRtwIqgiz4c2BHr7_g

> I am happy to make these changes now or can make them and send it back 
> or whatever....

Given that the external review doesn't end until after the telechat, I 
don't think we can approve it on the call tomorrow. Perhaps add it as an 
administrative item to one of the in-person meetings in Bangkok?

/a

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 08:15:21 -0500

Hi, Adam and Eric,

> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/HLFfvE8H2WRtwIqgiz4c2BHr7_g

I checked quickly in my own email boxes, but didn't see it. I may have
missed actual e-mail - I had a PUBREQ that never appeared in my inbox about
that time, which is unusual.

Thanks for checking the archives. I probably would have balloted No
Objection if I'd seen that.

If that did happen, I'm fine removing my Block - there is no Yes, and I was
No Objection on the version that went to External Review, and didn't
disagree with any of the other changes being discussed.

EKR, would you let me know when I should reballot?

Thanks!

Spencer

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 06:37:12 -0700

> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/HLFfvE8H2WRtwIqgiz4c2BHr7_g

Yes, I understand that. What I'm saying is that AFAIK I didn't press a
button to make it happen, which is why I didn't update it per comments.

> administrative item to one of the in-person meetings in Bangkok?

WFM.

-Ekr

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 08:48:41 -0500

Hi, Eric,

> button to make it happen, which is why I didn't update it per comments.

So, looking at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-cose/history/,
it looks like Cindy pushed that button, which is why you didn't see it
happen, but I think the meta-point is that we probably should have had it
Approved/AD Follow-up, or something like that.

Because it was just Approved with no substate, that would go out
mechanically, if not automatically. I THINK. Good question for Robert or
someone else who understands the substates better than I do. (None of us
process THAT many charter updates!)

So somehow, that step was missed, which would have put it in Eric's AD
dashboard for follow-up, like all the other documents we approve pending
edits.

And I'm guessing here, too. Some of you guys do code sprints on the
datatracker - can anyone comment?

Spencer