Re: [art] BCP190
Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Tue, 23 July 2019 15:40 UTC
Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 2BE931203A0 for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:40:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.68
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.68 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.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 UgW6h1NmYXrN for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:40:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 6EA631203DD for <art@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:40:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Orochi.local ([196.52.21.210]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x6NFe69D090658 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 23 Jul 2019 10:40:08 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1563896408; bh=r1C3suifMCJzDx7Jn1kgExZirqwdEVaqDf+WAOMEkMU=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=iuNeNNYctMOf5QJ8KnCHLUEkgMMIOJFXjz9STuGNBrPIGnWZuulBgBjfcbP491x82 U9HTLTcWI/wg4s+E/H1/xqIK4mNOV/ORXIxqcO17pMmw+eGlyH2Kpn+G5i6RP1x+jg 0C5RzJYxlYseIDlCxs+RqocspNlGQ/XkBDm+ocjM=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [196.52.21.210] claimed to be Orochi.local
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Cc: art@ietf.org
References: <422255D5-FD8A-48D8-8442-1A13E3E7B884@tzi.org> <8872cc5c-34c5-845c-c930-3a7f0e3501f2@nostrum.com> <E1B1F492-6DD7-4FAD-AFE0-BD19E0197892@tzi.org> <d79add04-9562-83a8-9e4e-fc44fff276e1@nostrum.com> <52b99182-686d-4c12-9a3a-24dc8d696c73@cs.tcd.ie>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <ef8e04ac-a085-633d-e680-2cf7e1c47efd@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 11:40:06 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <52b99182-686d-4c12-9a3a-24dc8d696c73@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/e5wYrW6Zjd0JRaxRduzhdpM0lnM>
Subject: Re: [art] BCP190
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 15:40:22 -0000
On 7/23/19 11:21, Stephen Farrell wrote: > On the general topic, I don't think it's realistic nor wise > to try always strictly enforce BCPs. BCP107 is a fine case > in point - attempts by the SEC ADs over the years (including > this former instance of the animal;-) haven't IMO made the > Internet better in most cases - some yes, but mostly not, and > while the general guidance is correct, being too strict with > it is not, in the end, a good plan. I think you're correct here. I also think that it's important that we agree where these BCPs get things wrong, and adjust them to reflect the conclusions the community has reached. If BCP 107 needs occasional overrides, a minor revision of that document to explain that point would seem in order, so as to save heartburn for all parties further down the road. I'll repeat what I've said to the TRANS chairs on this topic: if we can get an agreement in principle on the ART mailing list that BCP 190 is too strict and needs to be updated to allow the kinds of exceptions envisioned by TRANS, then I'm willing to clear as soon as consensus in support of that proposition becomes evident, even in advance of a draft that proposes the concrete updates to the BCP. Absent that, the decision on the TRANS mailing list looks too much like one working group discarding established IETF consensus without input from the appropriate stakeholders. /a
- [art] BCP190 Carsten Bormann
- Re: [art] BCP190 Adam Roach
- Re: [art] BCP190 Carsten Bormann
- Re: [art] BCP190 Adam Roach
- Re: [art] BCP190 Stephen Farrell
- Re: [art] BCP190 Adam Roach
- Re: [art] BCP190 Devon O'Brien
- Re: [art] BCP190 Adam Roach
- Re: [art] BCP190 Devon O'Brien
- Re: [art] BCP190 Andrew Ayer
- Re: [art] BCP190 Adam Roach
- Re: [art] BCP190 Mark Nottingham
- Re: [art] BCP190 Larry Masinter
- Re: [art] BCP190 Adam Roach
- Re: [art] BCP190 Melinda Shore
- Re: [art] BCP190 Larry Masinter
- Re: [art] BCP190 Manger, James