Re: [Gendispatch] New Version Notification - draft-eggert-bcp45bis-04.txt

Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> Thu, 09 September 2021 06:53 UTC

Return-Path: <sayrer@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71F853A1EA5; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 23:53:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 372fwkm-b5E5; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 23:53:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x135.google.com (mail-il1-x135.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::135]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E7A33A1EA2; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 23:53:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x135.google.com with SMTP id q14so883680ils.5; Wed, 08 Sep 2021 23:53:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ZR1IqFfAjqQcknGLxCa2VigTU4nZJZi2Sa9iqpspVjU=; b=W3IliF6esCYU7Kz1JIMMkav46rCmYQ2NsU/PAGAGo88gQGmPgJJY2j5nCF7n64NcF5 sxjJIw/fRcdTSEKNfLitHD8YCMJmz03oT0EW2nb/maZLYfoyZaYsAJt5ePD53btl8Hmw s+sj6W/pe68GktEv7t2yY+9hnJK+ZQ67tjLLZ8Z7yFUBlgOUgDCfJ/xRStplJqY8FKwM LczON7KZUnBCUD5LZ6A1maEO4FXNjIa4a3Dv3Qp0LXPYto47fbry4lEmqYajIWtxp+xX EPnG4CaYl3Ec0kdqhcw77fs89WgUk+95dp4ORZestWVnUjVf8dvDNERPr7Xkt3LO5JEZ eqXQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ZR1IqFfAjqQcknGLxCa2VigTU4nZJZi2Sa9iqpspVjU=; b=54kx/svIQ0QhW8yf4bBrtWVqKx8FbpvkoMGNOV5hGhEsxZO7jfHZiHZcidxm0F/iSd eTATG5+YXQEh6dHrXX2CdQkyQdU0I/MG0JRfVGD442dJ1320yldO2woOIhRWmmSvyDSJ AjVc9CdR8fbZWoD/baTk6iHyprXBtojrWY2Vir3m9HALSyNUhRaTdGS+oKna0RRBeo/3 fv+2Uh5BwU8TtFd6UTvlJPRD/+hk22h0Hb3Us+0NTDVWeLMZu2AJMPWkJtAxdiXxod3V Pbn78TIf7AyQoBECgL4wVW/gyfwKX47cvvxzpQe57KHJktD9ujYS/OTvmvhQMpP10ggD vDmQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532cfhD7AcgJncloCrIFRGw788OcE+lLqu46XtjjGdspu0bb8llX TeXzIc4vVFLitMqdpGX8yFywfz7U5UnuQVTuZFE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxgill7G6zLJ6phVwBR1FiklDF1oaYOoPUmXcW/XrTZpkU8VguLIwwtbR3olACoLkVK2v8fALMDsT77a+MzVbM=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:194c:: with SMTP id x12mr1165952ilu.155.1631170429507; Wed, 08 Sep 2021 23:53:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <163101639697.11702.11425677914483803771@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALaySJK7gF_FZRoYc_mhk62jGEvsO8oD-_rSpBErwNRvjHmpEg@mail.gmail.com> <40144D1F-3D7F-4C43-9C4E-2F914B5458D1@eggert.org>
In-Reply-To: <40144D1F-3D7F-4C43-9C4E-2F914B5458D1@eggert.org>
From: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2021 23:53:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CAChr6SzucoS8gf5GfKkOtJZqW9-WjjOBYGFfP-y3uv3BLSL73w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, GENDISPATCH List <gendispatch@ietf.org>, draft-eggert-bcp45bis.all@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000004dfcf05cb8a767f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/WmWZLBvYFgfBjYWKyvVyzEzgY1I>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] New Version Notification - draft-eggert-bcp45bis-04.txt
X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <gendispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gendispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:gendispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2021 06:53:58 -0000

On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 11:51 PM Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> thanks for the suggestions. Please see
> https://github.com/larseggert/bcp45bis/pull/6 for a PR that rolls those
> in.
>
> On 2021-9-8, at 23:41, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
> >   Because an SAA serves at the discretion of the IETF Chair - even if
> >   the IETF Chair is not otherwise involved in the operation of the SAA
> >   team - any SAA decision could be appealed to the IAB.  The IAB shall
> >   then review the situation and attempt to resolve it in a manner of
> >   its own choosing.
> >
> > Why are we varying from the normal appeal process here?  One reason to
> > keep the IETF Chair out of the operation is exactly so the first
> > appeal *can* go to the IETF Chair, as it normally would.  Then to the
> > plenary IESG, and then to the IAB.  I don't see a good reason to
> > change that process.
>
> This was also brought up by Rob during his AD review. This text is based
> on the current text in BCP45, which says:
>
>    The IETF Chair, the IETF Executive Director, or a sergeant-at-arms
>    appointed by the Chair is empowered to restrict posting by a person,
>    or of a thread, when the content is inappropriate and represents a
>    pattern of abuse.  They are encouraged to take into account the
>    overall nature of the postings by an individual and whether
>    particular postings are an aberration or typical.  Complaints
>                                                       ^^^^^^^^^^
>    regarding their decisions should be referred to the IAB.
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> I assumed that "complaints" were supposed to be appeals, because otherwise
> it's undefined what the IAB was supposed to do with these complaints.
>
> I'm fully OK with using the regular appeals process here, but since it
> would be a change from the original BCP45 and the intent was to do a
> minimal bis, I didn't make that change.
>
> Thanks,
> Lars
>
> --
> Gendispatch mailing list
> Gendispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch
>