IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [art] Against BCP 190

<masinter@gmail.com> Tue, 23 July 2019 04:17 UTC

Return-Path: <masinter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E9BE120041 for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 21:17:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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, 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=gmail.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 SGxJg4UX7Wta for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 21:17:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x634.google.com (mail-pl1-x634.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::634]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53DB2120018 for <art@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 21:17:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x634.google.com with SMTP id b7so20093147pls.6 for <art@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 21:17:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:thread-index:content-language; bh=VqSLvvNlFRBO/itl2o2FXNAbEUHQBz4NhODFHpRiLmI=; b=Kucm0eIUglblj9zXYQXgVgAN7NX3H2cNE+j8wvi2/sHEwK414ShoibMqalJHOrUb/l yRlY7BOsOTU17reFNLQwFAufuUYkpVgqS4iP3KsFu9ZtOQbNtVVaHsklev/wbWkhRJA8 kuHXl6F9srG3jC1m2IFpZHNLkb+xhJ8ws2+pdKLvFFinkirQqtK7qQTvkHQvseN3XuP+ hhpm21L09GWdMT/rBnx41tKaWi+MKtYHWLrTJnRqYGq/A7/+fG+tQta+G4FdttmvGhqP 9f+Dcqpt0y+lksNMVvk8YiTtoHvBGDlwdGL2ULQHPiEQZNslfEYxvOClwXg1fD22b7xi c3Rw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=VqSLvvNlFRBO/itl2o2FXNAbEUHQBz4NhODFHpRiLmI=; b=VA0utCsVkyIWvPy/i+279DtIsdJnshKsn7F2SlDNKN3CETLmnsYhTnEDVEKhicr8Mc RP5RG99IXVlhN9eNqUaMfsJn/8/1X1dBq5q8AVjJj8eCVH2xeMYHa5T25xaAdLwspUnM 4fw7P9M454fUIRZap6TvcUHNXXDWXZrNydU+VzE1OuYhla/0Me+MyiYVdJ5uOl+Z6sZ+ 6skF9oWrmCcFtYXTQZUZPaSmfVvZy0rodx4yRa+Xahf6ce13a26DixUxQv6TP+AZ1wye zST1LVBQt0IK1zthFSMKPZiR0bOUlDH6L1vYrfdSrP/cNT6PGahfuPbRG7/UrsJxk5FV GybA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUfNMRllRMC8QhlD19ZQAycM/35UHY2t0fM+TGXLGmPyzEfdsAk w/h7D91dp0cGS7RLAmRwfM7z+lI6tylbXA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwG7ND8ueRCn7VN7+fOKGPDe45IYKTPJQKOzLqng4NBlxtneN8wEgBQg+NA4z+zeg9WkhoPMg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:100a:: with SMTP id b10mr38380350pla.338.1563855459359; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 21:17:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TVPC (c-67-169-101-78.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [67.169.101.78]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x25sm53600029pfa.90.2019.07.22.21.17.38 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 22 Jul 2019 21:17:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: masinter@gmail.com
To: 'S Moonesamy' <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, 'Rob Stradling' <rob@sectigo.com>, art@ietf.org
References: <791b33b8-4696-f69c-aca3-8838b2caafd8@sectigo.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20190713054207.0bbd9b58@elandnews.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20190713054207.0bbd9b58@elandnews.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 21:17:38 -0700
Message-ID: <008901d5410d$90607b00$b1217100$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQJBBVEwaFYwe5JJTKFeM1O0Dlu61wKMIZkxpeunPaA=
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/4gxzrSYqOz7uQ5gJ4J340nFs3pY>
Subject: Re: [art] Against BCP 190
X-BeenThere: art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/art/>
List-Post: <mailto:art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 04:17:42 -0000

I don't understand
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis/ballot/ 
5 DISCUSS on a document targeted to be Experimental where most of the
objections 
don't seem to meet the criteria for raising a DISCUSS on a standards-track
document.
https://www.ietf.org/blog/discuss-criteria-iesg-review/#stand-disc
much less Experimental.
I'm especially baffled by the use of BCP 190 (which documents some
guidelines)
as somehow "blocking" anything in IESG Review.

I'd advise inserting a Note at the top of the document pointing to
the extensive comments in the IESG review and get on with publishing
the document, as Experimental, so the standards-track work can begin.

IMHO
--
https://LarryMasinter.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email