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

Lars Eggert <> Tue, 30 March 2021 11:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F9B03A0CCC for <>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 04:34:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 xi7TSYZ-uGEU for <>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 04:33:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [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 (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BE973A0CCF for <>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 04:33:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:1894:d982:c139:2ff9] (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:1894:d982:c139:2ff9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DC4B4600076; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 14:33:46 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=dkim; t=1617104026; bh=4J7St/+IM+gcTBX/o3JpDQ50AAmCjhCIT5RgWaMkaZM=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=bE2MlwYcfrD8B4a7pL2BG1+pK7X03qcdORXp9j3lJFLjJljAoa9RUe4dkhkDz13Z3 gOmvekPgXHCd4f5j7ssM8BSimmi/HIJgRXsD/Fz9c5d8OkEkxA3c+EFSyT5rR+pnDs 9rrW9LgoUzRLOlYHu3i3Q7N9j6d4oYSZqDOqRqsM=
From: Lars Eggert <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_608A3BA1-5F62-4923-BF70-8B537B54982F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.\))
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 14:33:46 +0300
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <>,
To: Eliot Lear <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.
X-MailScanner-ID: DC4B4600076.A054B
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
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 11:34:00 -0000


On 2021-3-30, at 13:59, Eliot Lear <> wrote:
> 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?

I think neither of these two captures my mental model of the IETF, which is one of several (many?) communities around different technical (or administrative) topics, which are all overlapping one another to some degree or another (the topics and the communities both). The union of all these communities would be "an IETF community", as in your first bullet.

That said, I don't think these differences matter very much, because:

> 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.

draft-eggert-bcp45bis doesn't intend to introduce any changes to the charter of other than those that are already in effect due to the establishment of the last-call list and other lists that have been created since BCP45 we published to be a home for recurring discussion topics. In other words, draft-eggert-bcp45bisit doesn't change the ability for the community to have cross-cutting discussions or to cross-fertilize ideas on the list.

(Part of the cross-fertilization, in the form of last-call reviews, now happens on the last-call list, but that change wasn't introduced by draft-eggert-bcp45bis.)

> 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.

I think draft-nottingham-discussion-recharter makes a pretty convincing case that isn't a general list for the IETF community (= the "union" I mentioned above), and probably hasn't been for quite some time.

Whether we can (re?)create such a "general" discussion forum and what shape it would take are interesting questions, but go far beyond what the purpose of draft-eggert-bcp45bis is.