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

Eliot Lear <> Tue, 30 March 2021 10:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 286083A0A06 for <>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 03:59:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.597
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G6NBpO1Af1a8 for <>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 03:59:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB8413A0A02 for <>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 03:59:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=8569; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1617101953; x=1618311553; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=5w7IKpIwV0MICz0Knn0ZkdyWAjYr+fqeDOvMycKQF3A=; b=mRED0n7gEs5qWc7K0MyCUUZGVAHo9YS0igIWXwE+A4+toRdzIKh/FRbz jjbQHdYBtIXMEb1JqfBssi4vm3Yunde/PHuUX4Z51NWEBN//PIhIC87lB mZGCcjmGnJ4exiO23oeXPQqikGa0CUI8695h7UEc3W+vsZzWJ3YWpOroA 0=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 488
IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:xxJcQqv5LCfR9jE8xsGfNMYP7skD9NV00zAX/kB9WHVpW+aT/v re/8gz/xnylToXRTUcicmNUZPtfVrw/YN4iLNxAZ6MRw/j0VHDEKhD6s/YzyTkC2nC8IdmtZ tIV6RlEtX/ARxbgK/BjTWQN9YlzJ25/LuzheHYpk0DcShQZ6tt7xh0B2+geyUceCB8CZU0D5 aa7MZczgDQHEg/VNixBXUOQoH4yeHjqZSOW29lOzcXrC2HjTal89fBYnyl9yZbdS9TyrE/9m WAtAr16syYwpeG4y6Z8XPP5JJLn9ak8P9/PYinj8gYLSiEsHfOWLhc
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,290,1610409600"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="34612754"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 30 Mar 2021 10:59:10 +0000
Received: from [] ([]) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 12UAx73Z020631 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 30 Mar 2021 10:59:09 GMT
From: Eliot Lear <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E7E2BD27-1A47-4013-ABCF-4D6CE0703549"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.\))
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 12:59:07 +0200
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Lars Eggert <>,
To: Mark Nottingham <>
References: <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client:, []
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] I-D Action: draft-eggert-bcp45bis-01.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, 30 Mar 2021 10:59:18 -0000


I’d prefer to discuss fundamentals before we dispatch this draft.  The first question I think we should ask is this:

Is there an IETF community, members of which are meant to cross-fertilize ideas, such that end product is the most generally useful? OR
Are there merely disparate efforts that occasionally interact with one another, who all happen to use roughly the same processes and publication format?

If one believes the latter, then we might as well dispose of the IETF list in its entirety and perhaps let the IESG advise authors as to which dispatch function they should use, if needs be.  If one believes the former, as I do, then I would rather see the list function to address cross-cutting issues that community members would like to discuss.

Regardless, perhaps better modes for discussion (on the IETF list and elsewhere) need should be considered.  For instance, a general list might best be moderated or curated.  Let it be a bit closer to the IPJ, for instance.

Just some thoughts to chew on.


> On 30 Mar 2021, at 09:05, Mark Nottingham <> wrote:
> On 2021-3-29, at 22:59, Brian E Carpenter <> wrote:
>>> *  Questions and clarifications concerning IETF meetings, although
>>> most of these topics are better brought up on the discussion list
>>> for IETF LLC administrative issues [ADMIN-DISCUSS] or the attendee
>>> discussion list for a given IETF meeting, such as
>>> [IETF110-ATTENDEES] for IETF-110.
>> However, since not everybody attends IETF meetings, and therefore
>> not everybody is on the attendee lists, we should be clear that
>> messages like "we are going to discuss the very interesting topic X
>> at the next IETF meeting" do IMHO still belong on the IETF list. The
>> previous bullet in the draft already says this, but maybe we could
>> reove any doubt by having this bullet start:
>> * Questions and clarifications concerning practical aspects of IETF meetings...
> If the intent is to makes sure that people are aware of relevant discussions, even if they're not on one of the attendee lists (and I usually decline that), it might be better to use ietf-announce@ -- e.g., in a "rollup" e-mail before the meeting, where submissions are solicited ahead of time. Or with an open calendar / wiki space (we rely on e-mail to much for stateful things anyway).
> Again, ietf@ should _not_ be the default place for announcing things. It is a subset of the community.
> Cheers,
> --
> Mark Nottingham
> --
> Gendispatch mailing list