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

Keith Moore <> Sun, 26 September 2021 18:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F7E43A2F0C for <>; Sun, 26 Sep 2021 11:38:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 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_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=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 7-i9E8hCERia for <>; Sun, 26 Sep 2021 11:38:46 -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 95CC43A2F0A for <>; Sun, 26 Sep 2021 11:38:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F03B5C009C for <>; Sun, 26 Sep 2021 14:38:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 26 Sep 2021 14:38:43 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=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=9ip9de3Y1AvYoP/PKXBfvDj6243B+udovdwKJSNKm Sk=; b=gDhOLcmHUR3XoZLE0AC2xVrBxWh3dcnRElaPvmy7iLRkvkrjberN6DrYq OIcA9rwtj0rK0CRvNwSgqgXxQJ01gaWfFli5tn0k6Dl3dPueFQ9dryJ1AvHHJgyy cBIo6YrCj1F7qKytLMBp3ucN1L/zbivaZAbUYLT0MqofoO+dFnXhKQ6pD0iPg+ct GLKnSPmxZNP1Pt5UY+TKdSx88Cpx3WjTnrkLzcil6kUOkR5ISSTojWgmPVq0WCcR 3XDXHnfnCwnsO2Lug/3Iiwt8GFWZKW30Ndl40BPBa7VU4erNcCxw64yEI7UKaGaP why2026qPe5L8GDbkpi9M8k7MuLTQ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:Mr5QYSE32pByuUPePfqD8UEHi493WmY4txqODL0jaHAtMpT7DB9pVQ> <xme:Mr5QYTU703KDETl6aUfSsqtcSPujfnvHl1_Tmoe4BjJhWfGnmPzrwEtRvOVq_xAKT UyWFIVWZXR2jg>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:Mr5QYcIrXi3GBIbSAlIYeVo5yfImjey3_rEkQYQqW6TTPJE8HHh2tPwFsSmKHJtKy16a-BxHOHAms0mf72oS5HI0kk4RG3ghEherVxgQyQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrudejiedguddvhecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtgfesth ekredttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepmfgvihhthhcuofhoohhrvgcuoehmohhorhgvsehnvght fihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhephefhuedthe efgfefgffhkeehgfeugfeiudeugeejkeefleelueeiffetfeeuudeunecuvehluhhsthgv rhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifoh hrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:Mr5QYcFZJMRkiEP3LnBoAEwSx6qOEusWgVTZKKZTV-pihpNIXrTnoQ> <xmx:Mr5QYYVhTYSetkuLEneOnRR_9AlTGIZKLVuxeo3TlAn8AE2SVHojFg> <xmx:Mr5QYfOfEpg6oy_SaigFQLiIvyPJQqc7jxkxyn4aoECpU2zVsOSJNA> <xmx:M75QYQgFdDdkdshu6Vy8Pa7lbHyegN7pWgHJr0c2lMR-pU91YT5gtQ>
Received: by (Postfix) with ESMTPA for <>; Sun, 26 Sep 2021 14:38:42 -0400 (EDT)
References: <> <> <>
From: Keith Moore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2021 14:38:41 -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=utf-8; 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: Sun, 26 Sep 2021 18:38:51 -0000

On 9/18/21 3:24 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:

>> Furthermore, this draft is written by the current IETF Chair. So, this can
>> be seen as shoring up and reaffirming the Chair's power.
> If you compare this document to BCP45, you will find that it actually significantly reduces the power of the IETF Chair. First, BCP45 allows for the Chair to directly impose posting restrictions. This hasn't been the practice for quite a number of years, and this document hence removes that option, placing it entirely at the disposition of the SAAs. Second, it clarifies that the appeals process applies here, which BCP45 left somewhat unclear.
What I believe has happened in recent years, is that one or more IETF 
Chairs (perhaps in consultation with IESG) have provided explicit 
direction to the SAAs, and without IETF Consensus backing for such 
direction or actions.   Unless I very much misunderstand the situation, 
to me this looks like a considerable extension of IETF Chair power that 
was not intended by BCP45.