Re: [Gendispatch] New Version Notification - draft-eggert-bcp45bis-04.txt

Keith Moore <> Tue, 28 September 2021 15:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5F743A3104 for <>; Tue, 28 Sep 2021 08:06:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XP8wXaqtYvv8 for <>; Tue, 28 Sep 2021 08:06:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1164B3A310C for <>; Tue, 28 Sep 2021 08:06:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal []) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id F21343201C6E; Tue, 28 Sep 2021 11:06:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 28 Sep 2021 11:06:36 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=5LZXpGa323xLZFlO179xQ07FGLAViQ2qX/zlyDZK3 AE=; b=Bl/KLST3fu4MRuYUIX4DmEwOJBgTuv3/ZjjjFqG3eovcKXmTcpJzvMX87 ccy3Tyzg2NHVFzv2cse5lwSD4kTo4HyZHRm1kLikIhdO402HS5SyofzN8tAbpBZR nx86SyvoZyMEhHqb+QPcAeCRT0bAN1hk453SkbLtgGHugglJ6Og4e0XNZ34MAtSf my7447v9hgIp+zxRWPD1pUIthu9MbphuNsqOuw90LQBGVeUOORras07ynu6eQNkp 1Cf8hb+dc3pCk/JuEvI7KGNmpPW7HDoUVHFh0NBLEKt3V/b3EL3hwqlCriY9LKz+ gFpeZCZRmfzBfBzzya8r3qpL7+Dow==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:ey9TYfS-4o-BUHrJWLimwme5eswc95diZ9LIxRHXdg-kkjel_PqPFg> <xme:ey9TYQyiAOTXX_lcWnd70ZUtem5jqgP4cwz7VoYrj_gDgyvAo77DXP48VtobzT-j5 Gj2ALhSBxL_UA>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:ey9TYU0fTGj3Gw1Riigf9NByt9lPcVPeECK19QSe4TSLUpX799eD-c6Z-Qk6XTWekO6h2rW6HiCV1J2C5JHN4CrpLldoiYADVFFRFrgW5w>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrudektddgkeduucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtgfesthekredttdefheenucfhrhhomhepmfgvihht hhcuofhoohhrvgcuoehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomh eqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepheduhfeludegueetveevhfeujeejfefffeettedtvdel fefgkeeikeehjeffvdffnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrg hilhhfrhhomhepmhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:ey9TYfDtZ7KLbErnbd_SSaTj2wlvHPW69nM0IAJgnue9HhsBCaR2ug> <xmx:ey9TYYiziQufdS-YBLpGHzoCMO9Er23iDPfNwOopJDFakhTYWUfLDA> <xmx:ey9TYTo9NJPAgliZuFnOclOqrdrtYPEZvYZmNX0Kn3OsuAGn94gmAg> <xmx:ey9TYWeKOhiX85UFAcdLMNqqh3AZz5NR0UGC8VJ17Ove0oKywlJ-1w>
Received: by (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 28 Sep 2021 11:06:35 -0400 (EDT)
To: Lars Eggert <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Keith Moore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2021 11:06:34 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] New Version Notification - draft-eggert-bcp45bis-04.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2021 15:06:45 -0000

Hi Lars,

First, thanks for the explanation, as it helps to make the differences 
in our positions clear.

Of course it's not unusual that (for better or worse) when revising a 
document we find a conflict between a desire to make only simple 
revisions, versus needing to update every part of the document, not only 
to fix bugs but to update references, use more modern notation (e.g. 
ABNF), impose new minimum requirements (e.g. TLS version), etc., because 
many things assumed by the previous version of the document have changed 
in the time since that version was published.

> However, more fundamental changes to this process, suggested by you and others, such as appointing SAAs through the NomCom, making the SAA team the IAB's responsibility, closing the discussion list entirely, etc. would go beyond the scope of BCP45 and the minor update that BCP45bis is intending to be. I would therefore prefer to see them made independently from this minor revision.
I disagree that these would be expanding the scope of BCP45, as they 
deal with the same topics as BCP45 does.   (FWIW I'm not in favor of 
closing the ietf@ list, though I've seen that suggestion elsewhere.)
> I also think someone other than the IETF Chair should be the editor for such a larger revision of the process.
I concur.
>> These days, it seems that suppression of inconvenient input is now much more in fashion, and is even justified as enforcing "professionalism".    So I think BCP45 needs to be updated to fit the current times.
> I still disagree with your characterization that any "suppression of inconvenient input" is happening or has happened, and will point out again that BCP45 was already concerned with maintaining a level of professionalism on the discussion list; this is not terminology I added or even changed in BCP45bis.

We do indeed disagree on that, as I have personally experienced efforts 
to malign me and to discourage my input, and I've seen others treated 
similarly.   And those experiences have convinced me without a doubt 
that BCP45 has been used to justify efforts to control the IETF 
conversation that were inconsistent with its original intent, and that 
the language in BCP45 therefore needs to be updated.