IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Gendispatch] Re: [procon] dispatching draft-carpenter-rfc7221bis

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 25 March 2025 11:47 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: gendispatch@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: gendispatch@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33BA012084BD; Tue, 25 Mar 2025 04:47:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
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_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8lg90z0Ll2xM; Tue, 25 Mar 2025 04:47:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256)) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC6FA120848F; Tue, 25 Mar 2025 04:47:46 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: relay.sandelman.ca; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; secure) header.d=sandelman.ca header.i=@sandelman.ca header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=dyas header.b=SLwTvDF3; dkim-atps=neutral
Received: from dyas.sandelman.ca (ppp-124-122-89-46.revip2.asianet.co.th [124.122.89.46]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFE681FFE7; Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:47:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dyas.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5A589A1DBD; Tue, 25 Mar 2025 17:23:39 +0700 (+07)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=sandelman.ca; s=dyas; t=1742898219; bh=n5ejGck5NnioCRmPJjDElgpcJY2Yxg+CtI5sXbyBb+o=; h=From:To:cc:Subject:In-reply-to:References:Date:From; b=SLwTvDF3CtgRf+fZE5Su8/42uBS5+3RMzG19mLZjq6adMFhUCL9ibRK5DXmqL8B1T sig9eij2I04bARIkiG9KhH45TXrxq1qF7wj2gGGidbE87em8nVDOmtbs/951GO1/U+ gX6vSZvHK81qDI4NVaH4HjtGELSuH5VvFqNJVl+MOYYDpQHM75bZGJW1CXx+B/zEop EICEjQ7/1sgTfv6fQb93cixx8yFx8bddwWOXqa0HUyFfStBedUEqigaBa0K/AVNotQ a4K5XytoBcve7qWlvdpGiXYAbKFqAqZM3G4j3OcLnmS7/2PkL5C7mYCJ0wOpQqgVov Id4v2V1pRWryw==
Received: from dyas (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dyas.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56F66A1DBC; Tue, 25 Mar 2025 17:23:39 +0700 (+07)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-reply-to: <E86893FA-05FC-48E9-9100-99FFC98C7C80@tzi.org>
References: <1212677.1742733409@dyas> <IA1PR17MB6421A795D03F694B92CBF9EDCDA52@IA1PR17MB6421.namprd17.prod.outlook.com> <E86893FA-05FC-48E9-9100-99FFC98C7C80@tzi.org>
Comments: In-reply-to Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> message dated "Sun, 23 Mar 2025 18:03:10 +0100."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 17:23:39 +0700
Message-ID: <1308918.1742898219@dyas>
Message-ID-Hash: D5RTB6E4FOPOIHE3LQ2A6ZITDGRJQ3WH
X-Message-ID-Hash: D5RTB6E4FOPOIHE3LQ2A6ZITDGRJQ3WH
X-MailFrom: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "gendispatch@ietf.org" <gendispatch@ietf.org>, "procon@ietf.org" <procon@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Gendispatch] Re: [procon] dispatching draft-carpenter-rfc7221bis
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <gendispatch.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/RxsgEOehC8nvOfu__Ore_W8Xiig>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gendispatch>
List-Help: <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:gendispatch-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:gendispatch@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gendispatch-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gendispatch-leave@ietf.org>

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
    >> substantive changes to the document […] need to represent working group rough consensus.

    > I hope this never gets IETF consensus.

    > The whole point of a WG draft is to have documents that can be used to
    > *test* WG consensus.  If they already have to reflect WG consensus, do
    > you do a WG last call before publishing each revision?  On *what*?

1) you need WG consensus to adopt a document
2) you need WG consensus to substantially change a document

Noting that WG chairs judge these two things.
That's not at all new.
And, those two points are not the same thing, but I guess it was collected
into a single sentence.  It's background.

WG documents that wander off are either fixed or editors replaced.

But, you are ironically, applying document-must-be-perfect-before-adoption to
this document :-)

None of that section is new.  Maybe you dislike the wording, but the question
is: do you agree that there is a problem?

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-                      *I*LIKE*TRAINS*

v2.43.4 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status