Re: [arch-d] iesg: Re: Updates on IAB mailing lists

"Joel M. Halpern" <> Tue, 21 April 2020 01:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D96573A1466; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 18:32:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.198
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sIBr-CoUSPKA; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 18:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 473A93A14BD; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 18:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 495mKL7498z1p3h4; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 18:32:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=2.tigertech; t=1587432774; bh=JqV+SdSSvuEJ0mZdso6IXRI9xc5MQjoNn40BFr9k5pY=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=cQkgQc49NosCYDt27IeuzGhPfGpGihLWjQjghl5viMIYlI7oijJWh9tbgkwB3lSlC MYbeylps0vc3iqzc7x6s0LF7LVCvzdDk9wQKfDHItR0V5rAuTM0mPpnsoeoz6W0TyZ 7MVsIecHjPviheofUWxs93fqnM1ULFGUCbQ7R2Ws=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 495mKK6tcfz1p3YJ; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 18:32:53 -0700 (PDT)
To: Toerless Eckert <>
Cc: "" <>, IETF-Discussion list <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 21:32:49 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] iesg: Re: Updates on IAB mailing lists
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: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 01:33:00 -0000

I have seen many examples on different lists around the IETF of 
situations where it needed someone to be able to say "no, that does not 
belong".  Or "your question has been answered.  Unless you have a new 
issue, please stop."  Or other variations.  There have been some 
postings on architecture-discuss that in my opinion (and I grant it is 
not mine to judge) were pushing the limits of what belongs.  And at 
least some of them seemed quite unable to hear "this does not belong". 
(Fortunately, in the case I am thinking of, the rate is low enough we 

No, I do not think we need the moderator / SAA function very often.  But 
I do think it is entirely reasonable to be clear who has that 
responsibility / authority.  For IETF WGs, that is the chairs.

On the specifics, I read the note from the SAAs as saying that the list 
excludes things that aare off topic.  You reasonably read the note as 
saying something more restrictive.  That part we can (and I think have) 
clarify.  That is quite distinct from whether there should be a 
backstop.  And given that the list was set up by the IAB, it seems 
appropriate that they appoint the backstop.  (I am generally not in 
favor of the IAB or IESG grabbing extra authority.  I do not see this as 
being of that form.)


On 4/20/2020 8:50 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> Hi Joel,
> Don't you think it is sufficient for the mailing list
> to self-manage ? i have seen nothing worse than on any of
> the other 9999 IETF mailling lists that are not
> Indeed, i think we have seen some good examples of self-management
> on the list in the past month. Tell me if you think that did
> or did not work well.
> I for once would be afraid, that if specific persons where
> given more power to control the scope of the discussion,
> we might not even have had the technical exchange to answer
> to specific claims made. On the other hand, i have seen bad
> examples of the SAA model on the mailing list:
> An SAA model can quickly deteriorates IMHO into more and
> more passive-aggressive language policing discussion on all sides as
> opposed to best effort minimizing robust language and sticking
> to the technical topics - which i think what happens easier
> without SAA.
> I am very interested to hear you express a more specific definition
> of what you think should be in scope of architecture-discuss than what
> is written in the current mailmain "about".  But probably better to
> discuss this in a separate thread.
> Cheers
>      Toerless
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 05:54:12PM -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> My read has been that architecture-discuss was for Internet Architecture
>> topics of relevance to the IAB or IETF.
>> That does not, in my book, include random musing about research projects
>> that may or may not lead to something in some ill-defined time in the
>> future.
>> And even if you disagree with the specific example, it does mean that there
>> are clearly things which are off-topic for architecture-discuss. Which means
>> that someone needs to be authorized to deal with such things when they
>> become problematic.
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>> On 4/20/2020 4:13 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
>>> Thanks - I hadn't followed Toeless' thread where he encountered the
>>> problem that triggered his email.
>>> Just to make sure I understand - the architecture-discuss list is
>>> intended only for topics that the IAB deems of interest specifically to
>>> the IAB and NOT a general community list to discuss things related to
>>> the Internet architecture.  Is that correct?   If so, then it does seem
>>> we need a list where folks can have discussion of technical topics that
>>> aren't necessarily related to work IAB is doing.   I know we've
>>> discussed in the past that the IETF discussion list is most suitable for
>>> those discussions but I think most would agree that the list has a whole
>>> lot more discussion of how we do non-technical things than technical (I
>>> would guess 90/10 for the most part).   I think many don't pay near the
>>> attention to the list that they might if it were technical discussions -
>>> for example, I subscribe to that list using my general email that I use
>>> for not real work.
>>> So, one question I would have then, is whether it's thus only
>>> appropriate for someone in the community to post to architecture-discuss
>>> if they are asking specific questions on current IAB activities and
>>> documents?
>>> Regards,
>>> Mary.
>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 2:52 PM Melinda Shore <
>>> <>> wrote:
>>>      On 4/20/20 11:49 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
>>>       > Personally, I think it's a handy list to have
>>>       > for purely technical discussions as opposed to all the non-technical
>>>       > discussions on the main IETF discussion list.
>>>      Right, but I think it's clear that it's not every technical
>>>      discussion, which circles back around to Toerless's argument.
>>>      Melinda
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Architecture-discuss mailing list
>> _______________________________________________
>> Architecture-discuss mailing list