Re: [Gendispatch] draft-kucherawy-bcp97bis

Hi gendispatchers,

I'm seeing weak support for continued AD-sponsorship of this draft. Please
raise any strong objections or endorsements for that summary and path
forward, ideally in the next fortnight.

On dispatching process: if a topic generates lots of discussion, seems
controversial or raises strong multi-party disagreements on paths forward,
then we need agenda time to discuss more thoroughly. However, if it doesn't
(and so far, it seems it does not), I'm happy to pass this through via
mailing list consensus when stretched over a long period (multiple weeks),
as it provides ample opportunity for the community to object or endorse.

Therefore, please share your views in the next fortnight...

Kirsty

On Mon, Aug 8, 2022 at 10:04 PM Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Fwiw, I think the document is fine, because this kind of thing happens
> frequently. It might be disguised with rhetorical backflips, but that
> doesn't change the deployed software.
>
> thanks,
> Rob
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2022 at 1:56 PM Brian E Carpenter <
> brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 1) I believe this draft is useful work and should be progressed. I doubt
>> that it's controversial, so AD-sponsored would be an adequate process.
>>
>> 2) Re "stable", I think it's a reasonable choice of word and it's used
>> three times in RFC 2026 (without definition). It is a judgment that the
>> IESG is already allowed to make by RFC 2026, so why not here too?
>>
>> Regards
>>     Brian Carpenter
>>
>> On 08-Aug-22 21:43, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>> > Hi Murray,
>> >
>> > A small point about your use of “stable”.
>> >
>> > I think that the converse is largely subjective (I know unstable when I
>> see it), and it doesn’t follow that that which I don’t think is unstable is
>> actually stable.
>> >
>> > It would be helpful, I think, if you were to replace the term “stable”
>> (which you only use twice) with something that clearly expresses what you
>> mean. At that point we can review and decide whether we agree with you.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > Adrian
>> >
>> > PS There is a Jim Morison joke in here somewhere, but I can’t be
>> bothered to extract it.
>> >
>> > *From:*Gendispatch <gendispatch-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of
>> *Murray S. Kucherawy
>> > *Sent:* 08 August 2022 06:03
>> > *To:* gendispatch@ietf.org
>> > *Cc:* Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
>> > *Subject:* [Gendispatch] draft-kucherawy-bcp97bis
>> >
>> > Colleagues,
>> >
>> > A while ago I started an effort to revise BCP 97.  I announced it to
>> GENDISPATCH early on but it hasn't gotten agenda time or direct discussion
>> here to date.
>> >
>> > It is currently an AD-sponsored document, which is a common pattern for
>> IESG-initiated work.  There was some support for this path on the original
>> thread where it was discussed, but Rich Salz suggested that it would be
>> better if venue selection was done by one of the *DISPATCH groups.  I'm
>> happy to divert it here if there's interest in calling the question the
>> dispatch way before it goes any further.
>> >
>> > The document can be found here:
>> >
>> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-bcp97bis/ <
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-bcp97bis/>
>> >
>> > ...and the original discussion thread:
>> >
>> > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/tCQUsGFzyQ_I9qwabJdtVFF5XKI/
>> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/tCQUsGFzyQ_I9qwabJdtVFF5XKI/>
>> >
>> > Naturally I yield to the chair(s) to run the GENDISPATCH process in
>> terms of venue selection.  Does this need agenda time, or is it possible to
>> ask the question(s) on the list only?
>> >
>> > -MSK, ART AD
>> >
>> >
>> --
>> Gendispatch mailing list
>> Gendispatch@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch
>>
> --
> Gendispatch mailing list
> Gendispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch
>