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

Keith Moore <> Thu, 30 September 2021 00:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C987B3A0AD0 for <>; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 17:20:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b93hB10Fk_IT for <>; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 17:19:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 490A13A0AD4 for <>; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 17:19:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6123C5C00C8 for <>; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 20:19:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 29 Sep 2021 20:19:56 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=LUoKVLpBIP2iUvzuIDDAHMdX7dNzGbtkakqSWmaMQ ZY=; b=HNMkhPPa20kdrXgTPAbgC+ACT77GUEb88//1W8XixBCnAs53Tp0V12vhH vczTXXkErDh0Hw/p2iDS+bSPhZwG3EE0wlOwT1k2LKurLNLECnrt+ZIrJNcv7Xkg x1kk8yIaDVm4OmCI10e/YaGmXtNn3wn8zF9V+ZjNbW5DmmO1tnylkKeY7tbPfs/Y cC4b2dDiDBYBD2Ylcs9mKSZRA8jgHrJqGpJ1SDXQ3z8ILxo89mnPWf0zgkkk7dcp 5oCWVlloPfAwDBfMiwP6i9QQD95Rlvr/8FXt6hBChPkyOmMXRc4xPI/OAk2lGl5P tPFAX0YVi9Qxk++hUlHN7C2YDtdBg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:rAJVYXTxzSOyRl5hYEZEPZy_SXvtIkllLe9IAgmoa0WRLNkc1aFrlA> <xme:rAJVYYwihLztGCaDlPEbAdsQteN1EeoHzscRdSj6BSkgO8yN0MURmrwjzFYRGbSUo i4Pe5wvS0hixw>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:rAJVYc3VvDP3RVV8kYjxGZCMuNntDQ3UQ68ziQT5pQ3Q9it-2j-26zCRHXKI5ngv-kyo2K5eeSkO3D1kB55ZfdqZM00vaUQDzinfIVbzNg>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrudekfedgfedtucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgfgsehtke ertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghithhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthif ohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeehhfeutdehfe fgfefghfekhefguefgieduueegjeekfeelleeuieffteefueduueenucevlhhushhtvghr ufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorh hkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:rAJVYXCiXNPm4IHBZIqctIkTbyCYxZcFM8pFUcP5VDKzmurzZACqgQ> <xmx:rAJVYQiO5VP3qnmd5UxRqHI7x3nIstyKHioQTIZE1LLFz7OdY4mxsQ> <xmx:rAJVYbpFn1YqrISvZ61xfvpjwDOtJ5px0EsRkJqcKvrCoK6mvRTEDA> <xmx:rAJVYbuWlwRsW0geMXtByJqxj_1c2ZJUxaeiEFqUmnxYxJBt9aiOHg>
Received: by (Postfix) with ESMTPA for <>; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 20:19:56 -0400 (EDT)
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Keith Moore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 20:19:55 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] New Version Notification - draft-eggert-bcp45bis-04.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: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 00:20:02 -0000

On 9/29/21 5:52 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Hi,
> A couple of points on the draft:
> 1) The current BCP45 states "It also hosts discussions of IETF direction, policy, meetings, and procedures." That has been deleted in the draft, which leaves a gap.
> I think that the list of appropriate postings should include something like:
>   * Discussions of IETF direction, policy, and the standards process in general.
> (and perhaps mention that drafts in this area go to GENDISPATCH.)

As currently constituted GENDISPATCH mostly serves to hide discussions 
that are of broad community interest, creating the risk that major 
process changes will be implemented without significant community review 
and feedback.  Also, in the past some GENDISPATCH chairs have made 
efforts to restrict such discussions along very narrow lines, e.g. 
insisting that all discussion on a topic be narrowly centered on a very 
biased draft document. Also, the constraints in GENDISPATCH's charter 
overly constrain the recommendations that GENDISPATCH can make.

I don't think that discussion of such matters should be tightly 
controlled, beyond normal guidelines for conduct; nor that such 
discussion should be forcibly split between GENDISPATCH and other 
lists.   I also think it's unhelpful to insist that there be a draft in 
place before any such discussion can take place (in GENDISPATCH even 
moreso than with most technical discussions). More recently GENDISPATCH 
chairs have allowed some wider ranging discussion, but this has been a 
problem in the past.

So I would not want to see GENDISPATCH enshrined in BCP45bis.

I actually believe that the GENDISPATCH group be shut down, or at least, 
that its charter be drastically altered.