Re: [Anima] rfc822Name use in Autonomic Control Plane document

Michael Richardson <> Wed, 17 June 2020 20:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7B6F3A00D6 for <>; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 13:08:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GSX3Doetxni8 for <>; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 13:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2578B3A00C4 for <>; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 13:08:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A88D38A12; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 16:06:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by localhost (localhost []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 5ww5VHkqBh-3; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 16:06:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5744B38A05; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 16:06:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 966DA209; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 16:08:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <>, Brian E Carpenter <>,, Russ Housley <>,
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <11428.1592266833@localhost> <> <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 16:08:35 -0400
Message-ID: <1063.1592424515@localhost>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Anima] rfc822Name use in Autonomic Control Plane document
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 20:08:42 -0000

Ben, this is getting very very tiresome.

PLEASE go read RFC7282.
"Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but not necessarily accommodated"

   A diligent chair who's been carefully listening to the
   discussion might think, "I have heard person X make this objection,
   and I've heard responses from many other folks that really address
   the issue.  I think we have rough consensus.

I will note that *I* objected to rfc822Name. (And that I changed my mind.
I can live with it)

But, you have been effectively weidling a veto on quite a number of drafts, and
that is not in the spirit of rough consensus.  It's just not your job.

If it were your job, then we would not have WGs, Adopton calls, we would not
do WGLC reviews, nor WG charters, etc.   We'd just submit our documents to you.

But, this is not only your fault: had the rest of the IESG actually voted rather
than Abstained or No Comment, then we'd have actual rough consensus, and the
IESG seems to have abandonned that.

Benjamin Kaduk <> wrote:
    > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 02:14:24PM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
    >> On 16-Jun-20 12:20, Michael Richardson wrote:
    >> >
    >> > Hi, I have had a few conversations with Toerless who is trying to deal with
    >> > the feedback on the ACP document.
    >> >
    >> > An item that has come up is the use, or claimed abuse of the rfc822Name SAN.
    >> >
    >> > We already had this debate.
    >> > Some time ago.  The WG decided.

    > With all due respect, this is not the sole decision of the ANIMA WG to
    > make.  If WGs had such authority then why bother with cross-area
    > review?
says: Reviews

RTGDIR Last Call Review: Not Ready
IOTDIR Early Review (of -18): Ready
SECDIR Telechat Review (of -16): Has Issues
GENART Telechat Review (of -16): Ready with Nits
RTGDIR Telechat Review (of -13): Ready
SECDIR Early Review (of -13): Has Issues
GENART Last Call Review (of -13): Not Ready

(Unfortunate that many reviewers do not update their opinion when we act on
their advice.   So, for instance, the SECDIR review says in her text that it
is ready)

I guess you feel that it hasn't been cross-area reviewed unless you have
blessed it?  I think you should probably disband the SECDIR, because they are
clearly not helping you or anybody.  In fact, those reviews are just wasting
everyone's time.

So, our process is that the *WG* takes these views into account, and
then makes a decision.
That includes sponsoring AD reviews and IESG comments.
The WG took the objections to rfc822Name into account already.
You do not have the right to override the WG decision.

]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]        |   ruby on rails    [

Michael Richardson <>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-