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

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Mon, 27 September 2021 07:04 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 B0A183A1432 for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Sep 2021 00:04:04 -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 maXZ0zy2TRDo for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Sep 2021 00:03:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:211:32ff:fe22:186f]) (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 093AA3A1430 for <gendispatch@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Sep 2021 00:03:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:8959:e4c7:e08f:2df3]) (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 96CD26003D5; Mon, 27 Sep 2021 10:03:48 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1632726228; bh=uadEzZEcjTYclG+QIObNAKwVGdu2PhT4MTilj68iqkc=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=s95M8vIyZL+afovPGY5qbuN6ebC6jaK5KyCxKXhdasz+MfNgGLYJt/Vd5ZHKOXBpi GbH0AXrRAGdNYuDqm2PJ4lBQ5YCPRtbpk8QfQasT7PDLHsg14/2xcwqo3WUDX6oDJn ILcHgmumhVy+ghG0B+AKId9TuSmrxxaehhGrGlWg=
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Message-Id: <659B9EF9-A565-45A0-A911-B289891F18C1@eggert.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_25A3218A-7F96-4CDE-A1CC-75D3029124F5"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\))
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 10:03:47 +0300
In-Reply-To: <c72b7a04-33a4-6c64-e8a0-b555fdd4ffc2@network-heretics.com>
Cc: gendispatch@ietf.org
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
References: <DM4PR11MB543899B05B3BD7AD92459B3FB5DB9@DM4PR11MB5438.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <A1F6409C-97AA-42A9-AAFD-C1AED39559E9@yahoo.co.uk> <F3E0166F-1ABC-445C-A269-54BB523BA5FA@eggert.org> <c72b7a04-33a4-6c64-e8a0-b555fdd4ffc2@network-heretics.com>
X-MailScanner-ID: 96CD26003D5.A18A4
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/CwMwSKQXQOTk-sIbfgs2BzHEIww>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] New Version Notification - draft-eggert-bcp45bis-04.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: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 07:04:05 -0000

Hi,

On 2021-9-26, at 21:38, Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> wrote:
> 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,

as I just said in another reply, the IETF Chair under BCP45 is permitted to directly restrict posting privileges, without the need to consult the IESG or the SAA team.

> and without IETF Consensus backing for such direction or actions.

BCP45 does not require IETF consensus when posting privileges are restricted.

> 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.

I disagree. BCP45 is very clear on what powers it grants.

Thanks,
Lars