Re: [arch-d] Time to reboot RFC1984 and RFC2804?

Brian E Carpenter <> Thu, 15 October 2020 22:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 538CA3A0B6F for <>; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 15:46:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.312
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.312 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ol1cIjtbyz9r for <>; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 15:46:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::632]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F0893A0B6E for <>; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 15:46:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id p11so181326pld.5 for <>; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 15:46:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gTDlotqjlz9Cc1bUemq+MOZEqe1hJxy/R7VZu5eqcyU=; b=XUoO5mXYUrFJEb6ew0gUFnheL5hPgYDLLyi0LicY1rs2+IYE7XUsWlTRnXzXRmgKBS siQuPN6osexx1CwdeqxigRwdv5cPsKA6AUzRWhkF5L1iZx64KAQKG4UlCwBl9T02XyLq M5isetMvwj6vtmmuwYJphSNUTzitZ51IvpLtIc7cmzAddrduPa9as3nDZcPuzm1pWNN3 y0HWag3d4lf2ZnN1ohVm3gUz8vLviXJmWjLDA8mEXWtmBOPMiZRb+Kg8ds94eMks7sXY aiVLVOAQndkjxupBCX2W+y+tXIc/RNSEtaBTeBdHFBVeWioVVZmMyXz+BgsDOBx56hcg werQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=gTDlotqjlz9Cc1bUemq+MOZEqe1hJxy/R7VZu5eqcyU=; b=GcPj6mtg88pcz+OTqaQp8fE5F6h23ayYeKXv/zCNIp8CoAPT+e9jm6gWJMibaYiVwV f3c3TcqqBqRbmpkUEkQLKdhxeedNKAI3HC5+yF2QVQWPGkoFJhz9OJGNZmGQazWFjZB1 2jd1IXWwVfDwRdHI9ItgyyRU6O26V3PNjRgpFaeWoSFaVnPrNm/e/LezdTTS5gBn1/dZ CfsDClte+bFSELH/0pCj/cNUjaCBh9SG/DnRLGW0C1jD4SVdOTlRbLbewsDh+ju6R2f6 orzfKz6FOkGCYMpJFhrbaqeAAInZfmUPlxabvP/ue6AwTK0vUeWlWL+IhkivlSi8LQy8 cEcQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5301WpZ6tYLd37W6zsgEIQUEyl2mr3tSr7sbCMwOzXgdoAp37uhN RWode2SWYuC+9hQdlHdcN4EDwnYgvuY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxAcFCoY+mkca8SYX5a6HXePxRO5YzGFNEVzHCRmjWezGWZ3j3Ix4gR3cV3jyYiuLpoj0c+0g==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:ab92:b029:d3:b2d3:43f0 with SMTP id f18-20020a170902ab92b02900d3b2d343f0mr900356plr.56.1602802009214; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 15:46:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id h13sm337437pgs.66.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 15 Oct 2020 15:46:48 -0700 (PDT)
To: Eliot Lear <>
Cc: Andrew Campling <>, "" <>
References: <> <975E28FE326C22E8CD32DCC8@PSB> <> <LO2P265MB05736C784B36942C7ECF71ECC2070@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <> <> <> <> <LO2P265MB0573F23F5C23ABD3933E49FDC2040@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <LO2P265MB05732E22C376062F808746E3C2050@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 11:46:44 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Time to reboot RFC1984 and RFC2804?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 22:46:51 -0000

On 15-Oct-20 23:14, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>> On 14 Oct 2020, at 21:58, Brian E Carpenter < <>> wrote:
>> When we try to go wider than that, we fail. I am not very sympathetic to "a true multi-stakeholder consultation process as suggested by the IAB’s RFC 8890". The IETF is not in any way a suitable vehicle for that kind of process, as anyway who remembers WGIG/WSIS is well aware.
> The reason in the end that I supported that document was that I believe there are aspects that the IETF could really stand to improve.  In particular, outreach is not something from which we should shy away.  Rather we individually should view it as a responsibility.  To think otherwise leads to ill-considered proposals that either get deployed and later cause problems, or simply don’t get deployed.

Yes, and I certainly support the higher level message of RFC8890. But actually organizing outreach to civil society and governments is way outside the IETF's and IAB's skill set. We have traditionally relied on ISOC for that, and that's one of the reasons that the IAB is chartered "as a source of advice and guidance to the Board of Trustees and Officers of the Internet Society concerning technical, architectural, procedural, and (where appropriate) policy matters". Has the ISOC Board discussed RFC8890?