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

Eliot Lear <> Tue, 30 March 2021 12:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7BE03A0E66 for <>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 05:07:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -11.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 SxQ3pSCtwAeS for <>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 05:07:54 -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 3BD913A0E0B for <>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 05:07:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=3472; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1617106074; x=1618315674; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=tSoC9TopHq2i+Uv2+0bmyYkjzO6d3GL5Qzp9fUf1dzE=; b=a9LBZf9S9Zx3GDN8l/wWTLTKa4TqHjpPaR2apQ/gBWm2zwh6WqLIX0hD UpCUJ4roz6/jOl/uH+gFzoenKeH0PVsMtraCBquJbq8WUBigQLAhp5p86 PFQVssjHbMyf5qfeB8NMCwg+9dnTy3unIKkO0A17GRi82Tw9Emwyn0t3E Y=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 488
IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:vyaIoKyr+Ov0RuPSqNC7KrPwrr1zdoIgy1knxilNYDZeG/bo9P yGtvIdyBPylXItSGgt8OrtBICsSW7RnKQV3aA/JrGnNTONhEKJK8VY4ZLm03ncHUTFltJ18a t7aaBxBJnRADFB4PrSxAm9H5IezMKc8Kau7N2w815XQQtna75t4m5CY27xLmRMSAZLHpY/Hp aHj/A3wgaIQ2gdbciwGxA+MdTrmtujruOFXTc2Qzou6AyDllqTmdrHOind+AsCWDVSxrpn1m 7Jn2XCl8OemsD+7APA3GnO6JkTov/d859oAcyBjdV9EESKtjqV
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,290,1610409600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="34615121"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 30 Mar 2021 12:07:52 +0000
Received: from [] ([]) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 12UC7n4W011267 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 30 Mar 2021 12:07:51 GMT
From: Eliot Lear <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7A3735FE-97BD-44AA-81CA-C0CC61E23A48"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.\))
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 14:07:48 +0200
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Eliot Lear <>, GENDISPATCH List <>
To: Lars Eggert <>
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 12:08:00 -0000

Hi Lars,

Just two comments for now.

> On 30 Mar 2021, at 13:33, Lars Eggert <> wrote:
> Signed PGP part
> Hi,
> 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.

Sure.  And there may be other ways to look at this as well.

> 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.

That’s my point.  Before we do a BCP45 update, perhaps we should ask if we should go farther, and take on Mark’s draft as well in this context, and then consider what should be done.  I like the idea of facilitated conversation.  I think it could be fun (a term not usually associated with the IETF list) but that’s me.  I’m sure others have their own ideas.