Re: [arch-d] [Last-Call] Call for Comment: <draft-iab-for-the-users-02> (The Internet is for End Users)

Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> Thu, 06 February 2020 02:25 UTC

Return-Path: <mstjohns@comcast.net>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5277012011A for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 18:25:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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=comcast.net
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 4Fry651xMT0K for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 18:25:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-12v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-12v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:44]) (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 948C51200A4 for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 18:25:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resomta-ch2-14v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.110]) by resqmta-ch2-12v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTP id zVUNisvUwtdfMzWr7ixrdN; Thu, 06 Feb 2020 02:25:25 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=20190202a; t=1580955925; bh=YX/MNwZkHCGLxYkdezlwIbypOtZQ+yvRKr/21xIXkQY=; h=Received:Received:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=o4HndPgK9LxvgyzWTTd5EH3wHitZRONTUwX12AdJS9iXE08O6u0YHvXn6Q6rBm6D1 ARVuHlcNRS7J0UtzGCz+7VqZRfcb5GLdpqITb8YZlPe5j9bgAPyKH7KzJPg1D7Mr6k mzEts50UvyM+I6BfQGVEuj8dZekfSIdaAQLpf4AALPM7BSGmb0xNR129DR6KbHeRxw zzCGnr5WD481lx2Fk5fUuZWJd0l/UN1gTzKHZBKmVEb0buYfRSw2q3yAv2GgJlUj3B CfBEc1KL3LAtoKh5wIHGwzZG+y+W3u5QcC35e84c8mpLZsZYYddRQx1pOG19GGZSdJ AoMMXiuwdj54Q==
Received: from [IPv6:2601:152:4400:437c:1909:41e4:4efe:613f] ([IPv6:2601:152:4400:437c:1909:41e4:4efe:613f]) by resomta-ch2-14v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTPSA id zWr5iclFkVh07zWr5iykq1; Thu, 06 Feb 2020 02:25:24 +0000
X-Xfinity-VMeta: sc=-100.00;st=legit
To: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Cc: last-call@ietf.org, iab@iab.org, architecture-discuss@ietf.org
References: <158094293707.31222.730373457433066701.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <be64994d-89eb-690b-ae97-b21626415504@comcast.net> <CAChr6SwRNFVjF7X+JiuAxsrGJAyiW2AofwQoBXa+xFqLvFtFtQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <446af639-f4f8-04c6-73dc-4061b420cd75@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 21:25:22 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAChr6SwRNFVjF7X+JiuAxsrGJAyiW2AofwQoBXa+xFqLvFtFtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------D3AA5EFDA54B5ECA26756758"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/YFpLgGeIos8O08u09klbbTGKRTg>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] [Last-Call] Call for Comment: <draft-iab-for-the-users-02> (The Internet is for End Users)
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <architecture-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 02:25:28 -0000

On 2/5/2020 7:04 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 3:20 PM Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net 
> <mailto:mstjohns@comcast.net>> wrote:
>
>     On 2/5/2020 5:48 PM, IAB Executive Administrative Manager wrote:
>     > This is an announcement of an IETF-wide Call for Comment on
>     > draft-iab-for-the-users-02.
>     >
>     > The document is being considered for publication as an
>     Informational RFC
>     > within the IAB stream, and is available for inspection at:
>     > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-for-the-users/>
>     >
>     > The Call for Comment will last until 2020-03-04. Please send
>     comments to
>     > architecture-discuss@ietf.org
>     <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org> and iab@iab.org
>     <mailto:iab@iab.org>.
>     >
>     > Abstract:
>     >
>     >     This document explains why the IAB believes the IETF should
>     consider
>     >     end users as its highest priority concern, and how that can
>     be done.
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > IETF-Announce mailing list
>     > IETF-Announce@ietf.org <mailto:IETF-Announce@ietf.org>
>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>
>     Does this document represent an IAB consensus/aspiration or is
>     this Mark
>     writing as an IAB member?
>
>     If the former, Mark should be listed as Editor, and the document
>     should
>     include text indicating how the IAB arrived at consensus (e.g. "This
>     document represents the consensus of the IAB arrived at through
>     (internal discussions | discussions with the community | workshop
>     results | etc) " ).   If the latter, the document should indicate
>     "This
>     document represents the author's personal opinion".
>
>
> Are there competing opinions on the IAB?
>
> "The Internet is not for End Users" ?
> "The Internet is for Network Operators" ?
>
> thanks,
> Rob
>

Hi Rob -

You may have an assumption that differs from mine to whit:   "All 
documents published in the IAB stream represent IAB consensus" vs "A 
document in the IAB stream can originate from the IAB as an IAB 
consensus document, or from individuals within the IAB or from others 
that have information that the IAB that believes is important enough to 
bring to the attention of the community but that might not be more 
appropriate for one of the other streams".   My assumption is the 
latter.  The IAB has ... less? different? ... rules with respect to what 
gets published than the IETF stream, the IRTF stream or the ISE stream.  
I assume an IAB consensus on publication, not necessarily a consensus of 
the content of the document.  I also assume that what the IAB finds 
important may differ from what the IESG/IETF/IRTF or ISE might consider 
important - at least at the time of publication.

For example - this could have been the first of two documents from the 
IAB - one supporting the proposition, and one arguing against.  Or even 
three - the third with some sort of synthesis of the two.  In 
otherwords, a discussion of architecture.

Hence the question of provenance.

Later, Mike