Re: [Gendispatch] I-D Action: draft-eggert-bcp45bis-01.txt

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Tue, 30 March 2021 12:58 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D93D3A1115 for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 05:58:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=eggert.org
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 o8Vtvs0yYDaS for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 05:58:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [91.190.195.94]) (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 BF04A3A112D for <gendispatch@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 05:58:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:1894:d982:c139:2ff9] (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:1894:d982:c139:2ff9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0A2F1600076; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 15:58:03 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1617109084; bh=K6bSFrp+HU/5IB/tHWB2Y1cjHVATbrnJF615g6oU1QE=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=Vw4irG/QbauCeE0vGPN6MK5OtxhB9QXg85zbPJDlwHPDGSUZoEzN9umDwspYzliR/ YmaaYu6HScKVsIEUmbVuJECCYnvB2bDMQ+A5F9iHpSomJ9zIbAAFtuqkzO4qzdE0v0 4lb4rU3wrPXr1z4knq/QR7stBj8VJgcnCGuTacA4=
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Message-Id: <10400F6C-C9E3-4136-A4FE-D97B83E6F67C@eggert.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D55DB7BB-076D-4035-8ED2-3CC1A4ADDFFE"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\))
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 15:58:03 +0300
In-Reply-To: <0B3C59C9-5057-4DC2-AF1E-CA3216436996@cisco.com>
Cc: Eliot Lear <lear=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, GENDISPATCH List <gendispatch@ietf.org>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
References: <161701910454.13044.908232164554537032@ietfa.amsl.com> <55b4e061-f25d-8958-1e75-868bec0c735e@gmail.com> <D277EB6F-FDB1-4588-A77B-FC29B0FB782F@eggert.org> <963ED8F3-712F-4E8D-BF29-A3E7735E4641@mnot.net> <53AB2142-8BC2-43AC-86E7-EC9F1E72D9D3@cisco.com> <71B14C3D-AF8C-4C7F-9C14-03686F499E4D@eggert.org> <0B3C59C9-5057-4DC2-AF1E-CA3216436996@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21)
X-MailScanner-ID: 0A2F1600076.A16A3
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/-cW47Fetep8CPKDESiIp3M6anvg>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] I-D Action: draft-eggert-bcp45bis-01.txt
X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <gendispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gendispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:gendispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 12:58:22 -0000

Hi,

On 2021-3-30, at 15:07, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
> That’s my point.  Before we do a BCP45 update, perhaps we should ask if we should go farther, and take on Mark’s draft as well in this context, and then consider what should be done.  I like the idea of facilitated conversation.  I think it could be fun (a term not usually associated with the IETF list) but that’s me.  I’m sure others have their own ideas.

I'd prefer to do a minimal update to BCP45 soon, to bring its charter back in line with its current use.

We can always revise it again, when there is consensus on more fundamental changes.

Thanks,
Lars