IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [art] Call for Consensus: Re: On BCP 190

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Tue, 20 August 2019 17:15 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 34CBF120232 for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 10:15:00 -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 iHjISv4rUb5E for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 10:14:59 -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 804FF12018D for <art@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 10:14:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MacBook-Pro.roach.at (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x7KHEt9G061665 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 20 Aug 2019 12:14:57 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1566321298; bh=qST6w+gl5nhdorAipjGlCaam7pXo5WNpcNb9xUVc5pg=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Lc8pUOcoOR1JhjN2rfEbzR02gsL6cKCyPw2AkNudTJREdAECxL1nnqWiE+X1Qyqez HveoS4AYZgc/YcMqSp1hRluHGjQtsR3bbWuB/m+xLBJmCT53+cUCir9TI8loW43scT jVDrGGynx2GkLk/RvQxF1O+K2K9GM1E1Y8j+p62Y=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be MacBook-Pro.roach.at
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@letsencrypt.org>, ART Area <art@ietf.org>, Devon O'Brien <devon.obrien@gmail.com>
References: <58BF6171-03BB-4F83-940F-3A101EFDD67F@mnot.net> <CAN3x4Q=Jo1uBvfCG6CSrociYgdG+E4jq+4cB1txPjgboth2q9g@mail.gmail.com> <372FA049-7B33-4981-A0E0-41BD454CB770@mnot.net> <CAN3x4QmJsfx48MdhcBB+XWX+vfv=skSR2Z6kNPBWGVobvzNuFA@mail.gmail.com> <004601d5450d$62b33220$28199660$@acm.org> <CAN3x4Q=XR+=ugv6HEmOgsA6v64GkQ+4u-Hk+OBQ0Lp9jn-Cy=A@mail.gmail.com> <D154BA24-5027-4FAF-8779-CBA5533D24A1@mnot.net> <3000e948-14e6-80d2-e8e6-766d309c361c@nostrum.com> <ed64dc0e-5b71-63ec-cbac-85673c51109a@nostrum.com> <301DF34E4C5601BCA4D2BCBF@PSB> <A27BC0BC-B60A-44AD-B75B-859C71B0706A@mnot.net> <E02E5D4BA18EF0155B0EAE95@PSB>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <80bb60b7-cdc7-0df8-6a33-726839b15dfe@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 12:14:50 -0500
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: <E02E5D4BA18EF0155B0EAE95@PSB>
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/n7ITKyDZVx07DPA88UcGTmoNOvk>
Subject: Re: [art] Call for Consensus: Re: On 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, 20 Aug 2019 17:15:00 -0000

On 8/20/19 5:55 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> * For Adam, there is some question in my mind about whether it
> is desirable to clear a Discuss based on a plan about a document
> that has not been written yet, that has no firm schedule, etc.


I agree that it's not ideal. I'm having to balance the possibility that 
the end result of community discussion will result in not removing this 
restriction against delaying the TRANS document until we're 100% 
certain. Given that we've done a reasonable shaking of the trees over 
the past month, and no one has dropped out to strongly defend the 
specific provision in question, it appears likely that the end result 
will work out. Is this perfect? No. Is it pragmatic? Yes; and you've 
been championing pragmatism in this thread, so I would expect you to be 
on board.

/a

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email