IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [art] Against BCP 190

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Tue, 23 July 2019 16:02 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 48D681200BA for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 09:02:54 -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 1kyshW4j-t76 for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 09:02:53 -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 26941120121 for <art@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 09:02:53 -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 x6NG2kJg094389 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 23 Jul 2019 11:02:48 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1563897769; bh=Ylrsbyv+JtzfvEdHMfFAsod3BnhBAflC4SUyFtkiD9o=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=X53Z79UfwHh/D4WkJ5b6PBBT8AJawoc1AsqQotkL9/ZnD1nL2FeLcw2drp/75zGsa sIjCgJXh8M39eLRjIqc5WnXF/D1pq4VbskkoJnGlx4XhkyLMcgA6dM4zMRF4xjJDvP jJglJulpVHXQ30ZRiSq27SFTml7EZjsqC5T+8izA=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [196.52.21.210] claimed to be Orochi.local
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se>, art@ietf.org
References: <791b33b8-4696-f69c-aca3-8838b2caafd8@sectigo.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20190713054207.0bbd9b58@elandnews.com> <008901d5410d$90607b00$b1217100$@gmail.com> <529b1f23-75e7-c426-f884-8dd07825182d@nostrum.com> <f834b9cd-0dff-7725-a959-6514c22d3ae4@mnt.se> <eb6485fa-d3dd-8eb9-7886-b17ef9d10f81@nostrum.com> <1e6e3567-59d8-b868-4917-603b848ae984@mnt.se> <c8e5c099-fd38-e206-7145-81eb2b3d467a@nostrum.com> <3699ce1f-10bb-a1c0-8417-549284d18c49@cs.tcd.ie>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <c648b919-7c18-7495-22d1-19751c5b7037@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 12:02:46 -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: <3699ce1f-10bb-a1c0-8417-549284d18c49@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/eOYHQzLCgfV7GeqQUR-RTpG6SBU>
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 16:02:55 -0000

On 7/23/19 11:54, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> I hope that
> if the conclusion is that there is consensus to let trans ignore
> that omission in the BCP, that fixing the BCP does not become
> a pre-requisite for what is (as Melinda explained) a spec that's
> already been significantly delayed via IETF process.


I very much recognize this. I've told the TRANS chairs (and just 
recently reiterated on this list) that I plan to clear my discuss if and 
when it becomes evident that the community agrees with their position, 
without waiting for any specific concrete proposal to update BCP 190 
(although I would expect such an update to follow).

/a

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email