IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> Wed, 29 September 2021 22:23 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 7A44F3A08EC for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 15:23:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.098 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 eLIjsMG3-tYm for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 15:23:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x12d.google.com (mail-il1-x12d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12d]) (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 EBF503A0BEF for <gendispatch@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 15:22:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x12d.google.com with SMTP id b12so4564822ilf.11 for <gendispatch@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 15:22:36 -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=p4IFgPmGIxf8f0eWEQxnzko0KAnbmhowIoO9FRMTcpI=; b=Wv47icKHd6Z9ibi2xI+fHlelKP6mvte9GTRKS/e+abZYaKvPQ1JJ47MmOTOpLQuKJm BZmJsAQQennEEsbBcuPP0LGCj24xTyelLfBBtpiJ5+0+FMbwGkhiQK4URRRt2fOwO2Dm iFfcYmtqsD4PprTLQYIYsOXCI1qGwXXfW7wUenOkKBNZ68jxG7F6+rySdptFnEyqXhXc r7GHv5xpaxRf3EOVsIibjJRx+gr7JC7CgukwJX91D1DD0uOmgfY3WKSTMx/mdZMwRIbf 58eovQL7V/0VxeEwxoPZGM+QcAJyfghaMzdVRwLTnQ3QiSGXkdwYVyWp9nrUWEmKdsZW w5+w==
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=p4IFgPmGIxf8f0eWEQxnzko0KAnbmhowIoO9FRMTcpI=; b=RfxIVwJ6OHxldo2NHe7hQBb6V5FEcbZf6xpAoA/QpZkMk07Plecx92BxSXSEr8MHPR BJi43wpbq9B1KOc1sjpjC/9Q7qlViiHgMp1TjSI261b5a4bJCRRNA1XwX6SzvVRGDwIc Y43eWgUCc42r+o+gMas78VeUVyLrhI2c8EHWJ06ubbY51Gq6zdSYHypuu1rWeYpMO/j2 SWCYzll5EELvVvcyg8VBDAfdR2oljZTx1w6A3KU0jD+vHmZ6b4hXh8rpqieo4i1DyJwr 3/HHX4oB+jsaVXFdZCe7ZokBCN5z0Ujth70ZKXtOC1g4/dbswS1YhL+ni+W+OPO35Dcf LAaA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530aw6TaIcX3vQwwLHWIOAApZOkgWLsb08o6mVcPelPCrm1RCVMw quSNUB8vPf8/a1Mv4WgiQpB39U9uwjJ9cJ5Ww8w=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw/zwoIZJ/pYe7+2Z8DaxDng7mwpnLcpYLafm9lwZW8z680ko9c0U3WgqiRvKPT1687waEEs7eofKXLlBJU8jc=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:cb43:: with SMTP id f3mr1592866ilq.261.1632954155427; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 15:22:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <DM4PR11MB543899B05B3BD7AD92459B3FB5DB9@DM4PR11MB5438.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <A1F6409C-97AA-42A9-AAFD-C1AED39559E9@yahoo.co.uk> <aa82c517-2117-e31a-8ce6-27336634e5db@network-heretics.com> <BC2BE36D-1355-4A96-85EB-41728D207346@eggert.org> <e2428c95-be6f-5119-88a6-4f9f8d92ed68@network-heretics.com> <C68594D6-4D70-463A-85DA-9A47A3C504B2@eggert.org> <ce874b5e-3bf2-f552-8753-5f33027ab011@network-heretics.com> <188353ab-9801-1c4f-2c66-4dd6901912c6@gmail.com> <CAChr6SxoXD5qkGc82NSFdOKkMbA=2mN2t9fwLn+wXPoXjN1Y_w@mail.gmail.com> <3cc480f7-1338-933a-cd79-e3a54f1d7b0c@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3cc480f7-1338-933a-cd79-e3a54f1d7b0c@gmail.com>
From: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 15:22:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CAChr6Sz1Er_Puo5j03PsVva=0K+DRSEfEdYBK+FLHZv4UaH-aw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: GENDISPATCH List <gendispatch@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005e6d9505cd29c44a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/fGUfVT1kQhto7VGQwkzGp3wsd_s>
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: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 22:23:17 -0000

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 3:12 PM Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 30-Sep-21 10:59, Rob Sayre wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 2:53 PM Brian E Carpenter <
> brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     Add:
> >
> >     However, if the discussion is broader than the specific protocol
> concerned, or than administration as such, it may revert to the IETF
> discussion list, preferably with an appropriate change of the Subject
> header.
> >
> >
> > fwiw, I don't agree with this idea at all, and in fact think it is a
> source of pain on the IETF discussion list.
> >
> > Either way, this would be a substantive change quite separate from the
> documentation this draft aims to provide, and more appropriate for a draft
> that aims to change BCP45 deliberately.
>
> But the draft *does* change BCP45 deliberately - it explicitly says that
> some topics that used to be valid are no longer valid, and implicitly
> removes "direction, policy ... and [standards process] procedures". My
> first suggestion brings BCP45bis back closer to BCP45.
>

OK, I see your point here, but I think the draft accurately documents the
places where contributions will be more effective. I think this is more a
reflection of current practice, rather than policy setting, but reasonable
people can disagree.


>
> I have many times seen last call discussion veer off into extraneous
> technical topics and admin discussion veer off into standards process
> topics. Where are those topics to be raised, if not on ietf@ ?
>

Currently, they can bubble up there, but I don't think it's productive at
all and don't think it should be explicit in this draft.

thanks,
Rob

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email