IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Thu, 08 November 2018 08:08 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 9EB5A1294D0 for <103attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 00:08:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 0mINcbBTUBLU for <103attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 00:08:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4F0E124408 for <103attendees@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 00:08:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BF1F2E7673; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 00:08:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1541664485; bh=RrEaAHY7XKo/BfMMVa2uXbcmp1Euz1bMjA2994EdSk8=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=KDjvE4UI34VlkMFOU3Zgxhj6KMw5Je061aU8R9h6Xh0ggxDjdMWF1D/nFYEsf5o/n GeyNT2Oe2FBKZmPQhQYPyOl6lkfj9ahDWSP3AxPVzeDvFqyWodSqGt9VMOTdy0NoCb vzWP+OGBBLC0wUKVoRYXm5Wz3PxesHghFwzYdkCQ=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at maila2.tigertech.net
Received: from dhcp-82fc.meeting.ietf.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:370:128:5063:776:b406:3829]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1906F2E7669; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 00:08:03 -0800 (PST)
To: nalini elkins <nalini.elkins@e-dco.com>
Cc: "103attendees@ietf.org" <103attendees@ietf.org>, "hgs@cs.columbia.edu" <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
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>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <b3ce1a18-5d05-b736-cac4-7c56defc11b3@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2018 15:08:01 +0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPsNn2UEs9OzOVR8vT5gNCsX6LhJ7gOwT-PNaO6Y-Wq4ZnU7Cg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/103attendees/vOAIGbJPMwx1hf6qVimqi_G2LFc>
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 08:08:08 -0000

For clarification, is your point that "rough consensus" does not work 
well in some circumstances, or that our techniques for arriving at / 
determining the rough consensus can be improved in some cases?

Yours,
joel

On 11/8/18 3:00 PM, nalini elkins 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 
> <mailto: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 <http://www.e-dco.com>
> 
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email