IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gendispatch] I-D Action: draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-00.txt

Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch> Tue, 07 September 2021 09:56 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@lear.ch>
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 9EB1F3A183A; Tue, 7 Sep 2021 02:56:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.091
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.091 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=lear.ch
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 lPJNMopk1_gk; Tue, 7 Sep 2021 02:56:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from upstairs.ofcourseimright.com (upstairs.ofcourseimright.com [185.32.222.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8251A3A1826; Tue, 7 Sep 2021 02:56:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:420:c0c0:1011::2] ([IPv6:2001:420:c0c0:1011:0:0:0:2]) (authenticated bits=0) by upstairs.ofcourseimright.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-18) with ESMTPSA id 1879tqiw241677 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 7 Sep 2021 11:55:53 +0200
Authentication-Results: upstairs.ofcourseimright.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lear.ch
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=lear.ch; s=upstairs; t=1631008554; bh=3946uxnqQlESmK5uNXhtYDJh5VGrhE+C1lz5KcCLX74=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=VK5umMgN5pvm1/b28RVLOKl7z5etIZRFsbY9oLq5vZX/XqEXhLFp2cDO4ISPVzEpc bd9qUXuiYvLTq/toufb2ckvngZIzeiQswt9Oyn5857L6ubnCgS6M51xoe5yXOZc0JS Pos5oed7e9y+2Q2YeOi2I/JbvV7whQ9vilQGgmgc=
To: Pete Resnick <resnick=40episteme.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: GENDISPATCH List <gendispatch@ietf.org>
References: <20210906191255.760B42778391@ary.qy> <6F720ED1-DFC6-4DF0-B36A-BE5379F10F5A@ietf.org> <E2BF3163-56E1-47BC-A608-F19AED04D361@mnot.net> <C8BF5ADB-CB36-4C8B-A14B-E9B39B016DCE@ietf.org> <4D704856-F291-4E39-BBA9-2C3A1ACACBC8@mnot.net> <CAChr6SxvB6eTi5B3WfM8-uX5soc+brh81sX6D2dzQTmgJ9dMNg@mail.gmail.com> <0C75A2F6-C0C6-4F66-B29D-5C2D892D5CBC@episteme.net>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>
Message-ID: <e99a9947-9c37-63af-fa51-38cdf840f4b5@lear.ch>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2021 11:55:50 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0C75A2F6-C0C6-4F66-B29D-5C2D892D5CBC@episteme.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="hAgzAanxLrrMMSW2hPONantPCZjTA3kkO"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/CAm85n9RZqX0U7D0zh3iZrzA4nA>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] I-D Action: draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-00.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, 07 Sep 2021 09:56:11 -0000

This draft was posted eight days ago.  Some of us require advice on this 
matter outside of this room.  I'd ask that you defer any action until we 
can get that advice.  I don't anticipate that taking long (a week or so?).

Eliot

On 07.09.21 07:38, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 6 Sep 2021, at 21:01, Rob Sayre wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 6:57 PM Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Great. BTW for the dispatch question, I agree that AD-sponsored is 
>>> the way to go here.
>>
>>  I think Mark's interpretation makes sense, from my perspective.
>
> I have not yet consulted with my co-chair, so I'm not concluding the 
> dispatch discussion itself, but I believe I also heard in the 
> discussion "AD-sponsored is the way to go, with advice to the AD that 
> discussion of some issues is still required, perhaps before Last Call, 
> and therefore a forum of discussion should be identified." You should 
> probably speak up if I didn't get that right.
>
> pr
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email