IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [103attendees] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-elkschul-conflict-problem-00.txt

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Thu, 08 November 2018 08:03 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: 103attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 103attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B03A51294D0 for <103attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 00:03:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z2yuz8tzIvzX for <103attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 00:03:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72a.google.com (mail-qk1-x72a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17F8F124408 for <103attendees@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 00:03:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72a.google.com with SMTP id o125so25059954qkf.3 for <103attendees@ietf.org>; Thu, 08 Nov 2018 00:03:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=+VUL3yoodILKqmqsRWnVPs6CKb6WZMpPcrsXRK8IS7Q=; b=PMLcadjcdUyZeFeVGoRaQYzha0FVrny3j/bON6kx2nBewJL/EGieBwLGPjZApznpaQ Pi8HEn5g3qeW3dA/zezmcTuikIuCUQkPLxKlP2Zw706ELaTy57Tsf7ocT0tQRXjIHMmt 4ZOpYKA/Dr+TkU72gxOFx5sKmJNSx4fb77WWyd7kRX24yq160jXGCvRHYmCfrUuic3le A21kIpKBkHpbnLcxcZzoQQnCchlRgHZj6rmGDbgefpZZpjDd12sIvT2sRFBao2yIeENr 3zho0n6s4/ZuzWvbYVRmBKkEdnwAkY8ogWuK2UIBRZQLMMqu/CgvM+gGoGU0PBLtee2A M5kw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+VUL3yoodILKqmqsRWnVPs6CKb6WZMpPcrsXRK8IS7Q=; b=MQQfy1HCh/x/XdQ0klC10vy9JLkfqDco2V1mU1Uis+wcCKDHehC82s5eAYhIhD7rxN OXUH/mFSnS12uA8AVfb+nDbDId/NyyNFi2FjI+nE/N788z/23V6S3XQn9KUr0DzOPcNo +Ck4LAxsvEuhaw/ifqfFgQlh1ZetTsbh1yllaZ2okFjBnsEikraGF88wpyU7W9Ond9rL aoMFAaDvJbTzUhdbcWZCDVzR1+0Ibj6qu1UuRZWheS7Qc7GjW7p7RgRwUSrO7WY0bM8W 5iioxCOSgsXPEIOVZVNdW5VIj27xpsfXiHtZbfe9zU/QaX/KrC2faKk/nT+rbipuLn1r 1vbQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gIM4HFa8NaDjMw1RzBC7h6oPtT/sAiLDJkto/6fiQNzIaAD2dd5 r5VhpESt44y9BbPGDYMof1taDsv4CQ18fPuJ/UiexA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5dqiwEoGINIR3He+aeH8eKCOt38BdzHcq+kyfElSg4c3VItsywL0ywC0urh1Hxeycdumk5/NLsRF1C2nYoSfCA=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:8706:: with SMTP id j6-v6mr3170776qkd.216.1541664181108; Thu, 08 Nov 2018 00:03:01 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <154164679197.26360.2304672742129507952.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAPsNn2UfTNg-XLgmWXyn74rJy0WpQ+hf53SkyUQ6VcbQ-NOsVA@mail.gmail.com> <1C5D55AC-F021-406E-A67C-4BB00671776C@akamai.com> <CAPsNn2UEs9OzOVR8vT5gNCsX6LhJ7gOwT-PNaO6Y-Wq4ZnU7Cg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPsNn2UEs9OzOVR8vT5gNCsX6LhJ7gOwT-PNaO6Y-Wq4ZnU7Cg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2018 15:02:25 +0700
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1kLoUsBbMKyT-9wmNZsqXPrj9NJZ1Nhxk6cXh82jy-OyA@mail.gmail.com>
To: nalini elkins <nalini.elkins@e-dco.com>
Cc: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, 103attendees@ietf.org, hgs@cs.columbia.edu
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e0d86b057a22a992"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/103attendees/_0Akm3BSWr3I9t6J1aY8nde5TMQ>
Subject: Re: [103attendees] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-elkschul-conflict-problem-00.txt
X-BeenThere: 103attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list of IETF 103 attendees that have opted in on this list <103attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/103attendees>, <mailto:103attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/103attendees/>
List-Post: <mailto:103attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:103attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/103attendees>, <mailto:103attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2018 08:03:11 -0000

Nalini, "pointing out some places where it does not work well" is
repudiating it.   The places you're pointing out are not places where rough
consensus doesn't work well.   They are how rough consensus is reached (or
not reached).   Not getting consensus is a valid outcome of a process.   If
every process were required to reach consensus, we would publish a lot of
mistakes.

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 3:00 PM nalini elkins <nalini.elkins@e-dco.com>
wrote:

> > I am not sure where the best place to discuss this draft is, but I am
> pretty sure that a mailing list of a subset of folks who are attending the
> current IETF meeting is most
>
> > definitely **not** the best place.
>
>
> How about the IETF-discuss list?  Any suggestions?
>
>
> > I also share Ted’s concern that there is an implied repudiation of
> “rough consensus” in this draft, and we would all be better served if it
> were made explicit.
>
>
>
> I am not sure how that is coming about.  I really did not have any
> intention of repudiating "rough consensus".  Just pointing out some places
> where it does not work well.  I am actually confused about why people are
> reading it this way.
>
>
> Nalini
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Salz, Rich <rsalz@akamai.com> wrote:
>
>> I am not sure where the best place to discuss this draft is, but I am
>> pretty sure that a mailing list of a subset of folks who are attending the
>> current IETF meeting is most definitely **not** the best place.
>>
>>
>>
>> I also share Ted’s concern that there is an implied repudiation of “rough
>> consensus” in this draft, and we would all be better served if it were made
>> explicit.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Nalini Elkins
> President
> Enterprise Data Center Operators
> www.e-dco.com
>
> --
> 103attendees mailing list
> 103attendees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/103attendees
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email