IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [AVTCORE] ***SPAM*** 5.977 (5) RE: Mail regarding RFC 7273

worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Wed, 17 December 2014 22:54 UTC

Return-Path: <worley@alum.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAD9B1A0183 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 14:54:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
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 1-vM3U6N8NW0 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 14:54:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-04v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-04v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AABE1A0127 for <avt@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 14:54:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resomta-ch2-16v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.112]) by resqmta-ch2-04v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id Umtx1p0042S2Q5R01mu3iv; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 22:54:03 +0000
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com ([24.34.72.61]) by resomta-ch2-16v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id Umu21p00M1KKtkw01mu2ui; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 22:54:03 +0000
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com (hobgoblin.ariadne.com [127.0.0.1]) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id sBHMs2Uc018323; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 17:54:02 -0500
Received: (from worley@localhost) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id sBHMs1Ml018319; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 17:54:01 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: hobgoblin.ariadne.com: worley set sender to worley@alum.mit.edu using -f
From: worley@ariadne.com
To: Julius Friedman <juliusfriedman@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACFvNHXJjLxAYnfgXGCiZH-Y2yCJvOPfRM8ZHZ=kajQPqPOV1w@mail.gmail.com> (juliusfriedman@gmail.com)
Sender: worley@ariadne.com
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 17:54:01 -0500
Message-ID: <87sigdopkm.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1418856843; bh=CZpnagDnMmjRTNqVwLIzTzs8Qu8N+4jas1aIw6f7xcg=; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date: Message-ID; b=KHccEALgwNQnvfbNWdoEKyoWeN51Cs364hy9+z24/QJzH7/f3T/XwjKFaPRp2a0Xd Fyh9TR7cL7YkZoORyQAYoCs2TErCOoqjF7dhyIri0K1tplHPnkdboFq4d6ipy8o93Z XbBol9ACqjK92A3Pab0r+XXJxSTwgfd5qofIhzeH2Wc6BXDZ1T+rON5wAFl5Zbu7lG hCeASPL1kO8YBLxhO9IH3Zd3vhpvvmBQtj5Bpb9ahgesoq5dNFwTXCGsS9HHx6ywXe 3wjiWNlyFGoi2MhwWqpv8RHh+1gFxbUbppVMyX56mmVACcV1Ieva3d/zanCriceFMA vIMi5FNG9443g==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/76GGAxeIEb1ofBAE95HEegdctxA
Cc: avt@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] ***SPAM*** 5.977 (5) RE: Mail regarding RFC 7273
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avt/>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 22:54:07 -0000

Julius Friedman <juliusfriedman@gmail.com> writes:
> My position is unchanged.
>
> Its my goal to fix existing issues in the spec and well as simplify it
> where possible.

If you think there are problems in the operation of real systems, why
don't you propose additional mechanisms that will solve the problems?

No, you aren't going to change the definition of a mechanism whose
definition is an RFC.  It's just not going to happen; people already
have implementations of the RFC in production.

The way to achieve useful change in the IETF is to write an
Internet-Draft explaining what the problem is and proposing suitable
additional mechanisms.  Then you discuss it on the mailing list, looking
for people who agree with you that the problem exists and the mechanism
will solve it.  And of course, taking their feedback to heart.

A very useful reference is RFC 4144, "How to Gain Prominence and
Influence in Standards Organizations".
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4144/

Also, please remember the core principles of the IETF:  "All my speak."
"Not all are listened to."  If one annoys people, it is not a crime, but
it removes the one path one has to influence:  being listened to.

Dale

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email