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

Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> Sat, 25 September 2021 03:00 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 81F8F3A1269; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 20:00:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.097 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, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 CS-SN-QQDKfa; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 20:00:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd36.google.com (mail-io1-xd36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d36]) (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 849D33A1260; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 20:00:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd36.google.com with SMTP id 134so15130344iou.12; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 20:00:06 -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=1wR+t6YO2H/UjFjdXlf+HEVrhlMeBIJYzGBpbWUOETA=; b=e1BjGBMVLlIlOAzH5zQ9f4Uh8nE9hknpEJVBbaAgKCXryRV5xDS3kEHo88VA2DDDlV CRCAoCSnwT3knIIykm5oDaGf4rRApl+U74v2Scm1RaeCgbUJgxu4y63Wjoz8DfOyA58q 4IL1ZsVWW2A1jjEoecwKKVUaTQOdgalWkiSvPAf73atuJ92+Sko6PhX68QmtWEXo630q c3k1UERVBxOuMb4qek+5p+80HpWHnPA0zFGZ1I/tVbwFFtJ/tZpgA6H5BiJWadTa/NP1 Q+XHehvxGSJMV09SaaBK/on3Jf7qslUioEloRikMJW0P//ILWcm9vY0uz1JRpnV5X7D9 eUlw==
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=1wR+t6YO2H/UjFjdXlf+HEVrhlMeBIJYzGBpbWUOETA=; b=4qB7F/U0gNRKHaL/e2d9Y6/M5aOoO+nrpCHK+rt/xLzWwcLoBVF9aZL8GMFB6AJOOF EEkRrhjl/YhMbWqhC8bktfkU0Al8MMoY0sujWbneNkk459N64H33Ds4E1FBHVziUc6Uq ghoUufLtNteaD1NWhyHmTOi8zdv4Gj6Hrx94SuiGYiyOLLStvA6mW2d+VnaO3L4M5eV4 UtT1ctXk1pczesZ5bdUSarqK4jNOQTXPfvxdft41dhwocnI3+nmH5XYQcbrHCvLpqgIL 3NUeQkhYxP3nXYJfn/jTxHu931m1uKvILdsY/17X7Qhqd3HLU7q5BIAzhBz3rDsn7UDg jMUQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533yfQt7YdHI8ha5vzxoGbtuwf+6j99VYJ/OJGnHjWVMKNY+cNnV 3dthHMbYvUg9x+Cl26rPoJSElATBuEykO2sw4bc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyHAeTXcerqMwyde/emp5SvPcckmwDyzr4RsoiHuEj7pXlfMCkPBsBh3ghNBmvcq6FlJ5RcQZbJRjBgSstP8LU=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:959a:: with SMTP id a26mr11473949ioo.154.1632538805423; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 20:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <DM4PR11MB543899B05B3BD7AD92459B3FB5DB9@DM4PR11MB5438.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <A1F6409C-97AA-42A9-AAFD-C1AED39559E9@yahoo.co.uk> <F3E0166F-1ABC-445C-A269-54BB523BA5FA@eggert.org> <CABcZeBOu-QMv6e00gOsZivjvzkKr1G3b+pS5R6=UGx2hMAv5Uw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBOu-QMv6e00gOsZivjvzkKr1G3b+pS5R6=UGx2hMAv5Uw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 19:59:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CAChr6Syay9KWG6a4wRbGbh+wbeKoxPJOCTrxsmADz0BjFwNa-Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, GENDISPATCH List <gendispatch@ietf.org>, Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>, Lloyd W <lloyd.wood=40yahoo.co.uk@dmarc.ietf.org>, "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, draft-eggert-bcp45bis.all@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009452ce05ccc90fcd"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/yXlkkl7invSUenBUAQ5goQoKVmg>
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: Sat, 25 Sep 2021 03:00:12 -0000

Also in favor of publishing, but do agree that SAA is a rather pompous term
for “moderator”. That wording doesn’t need to change now, though.

thanks,
Rob

On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 7:19 PM Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:

> I am in favor of publishing this document. Those who would prefer some
> more global change to the SAA process should instead propose those changes
> in the form of a draft.
>
> -Ekr
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 12:25 AM Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2021-9-17, at 13:31, Lloyd W <lloyd.wood=40yahoo.co.uk@dmarc.ietf.org>
>> wrote:
>> > As a latecomer to this thread, and as someone with rather more recent
>> > experience of the SAAs than most... section 4 says:
>> >
>> >    A sergeant-at-arms (SAA) is an officer appointed by a deliberative
>> >    body to keep order during its meetings [SAA-WIKIPEDIA].  SAAs for the
>> >    IETF discussion list are appointed by the IETF Chair
>> >
>> > The contradiction here is obvious. An SAA is appointed by a
>> deliberative body,
>> > during its meetings, and the IETF Chair is not a deliberative body.
>>
>> I added this quote from Wikipedia, because SAA is a pretty US/UK-centric
>> term, and I received feedback that it is confusing to participants from
>> other regions when they first encounter it.
>>
>> I'd be happy to point to a different explanatory definition. I'd also be
>> happy to remove it again.
>>
>> > An SAA
>> > should be appointed by the deliberative body itself, which is to say,
>> the list
>> > itself, by the list members.
>>
>> Maybe it should, but BCP45 didn't set it up this way and this draft is
>> not intending to change that.
>>
>> > Furthermore, this draft is written by the current IETF Chair. So, this
>> can
>> > be seen as shoring up and reaffirming the Chair's power.
>>
>> If you compare this document to BCP45, you will find that it actually
>> significantly reduces the power of the IETF Chair. First, BCP45 allows for
>> the Chair to directly impose posting restrictions. This hasn't been the
>> practice for quite a number of years, and this document hence removes that
>> option, placing it entirely at the disposition of the SAAs. Second, it
>> clarifies that the appeals process applies here, which BCP45 left somewhat
>> unclear.
>>
>> > I strongly object to this. Documenting or redocumenting an existing
>> process
>> > doesn't make that process right, and this violates the basic concept of
>> the
>> > SAA as described.
>>
>> If you would like to propose changes to the BCP45 SAA process, please do
>> so. Objecting to this document isn't going to result in such changes,
>> because BCP45 would remain unchanged.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Lars
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Lloyd Wood
>> > lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk
>> >
>> >> On 15 Sep 2021, at 18:48, Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton=
>> 40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 
>> >> I’ve not seen any further comments on this thread since Saturday.
>> >>
>> >> My interpretation is that Lars and Barry are supportive of this change.
>> >>
>> >> Brian, my interpretation is that Lar’s proposed text is acceptable to
>> you.  Please clarify if this is not the case.
>> >>
>> >> I would like to wait until Friday to see if there are any further
>> comments on Lar’s proposed text.  If there are no strong objections then on
>> Friday I’ll ask Lars to post a -05 with the change and I’ll kick off IETF
>> LC.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Rob
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> From: Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
>> >> Sent: 11 September 2021 08:38
>> >> To: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
>> >> Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>rg>; GENDISPATCH List <
>> gendispatch@ietf.org>gt;; draft-eggert-bcp45bis.all@ietf.org
>> >> Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] New Version Notification -
>> draft-eggert-bcp45bis-04.txt
>> >>
>> >> Hi Lars,
>> >> Since 2026 doesn't mention conflict of interest, that's probably the
>> procedure. Not entirely satisfactory, but we could live with it.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >>     Brian Carpenter
>> >>     (via tiny screen & keyboard)
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, 11 Sep 2021, 17:37 Lars Eggert, <lars@eggert.org> wrote:
>> >> Hi Brian,
>> >>
>> >> Is that an option in your reading of 2026? They way I understand it is
>> that if the AD is conflicted, the entire IESG is the next step?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Lars
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Sent from a mobile device; please excuse typos.
>> >>
>> >> > On Sep 10, 2021, at 23:20, Brian E Carpenter <
>> brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > On 10-Sep-21 23:01, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> >> >> That works for me, Lars, and thanks.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I see Brian's point about Gen AD instead of IETF Chair, but I don't
>> >> >> agree with it here, because the SAAs are explicitly appointed by the
>> >> >> IETF Chair, not related to the Gen Area.
>> >> >
>> >> > You're correct. There's still the corner case where the IETF Chair is
>> >> > conflicted - for example, if the message(s) objected to by the SAAs
>> >> > made allegations about the IETF Chair themself. Probably another AD
>> >> > should be the first recourse in that case.
>> >> >
>> >> >   Brian
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Barry
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 3:11 AM Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
>> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Hi,
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I have a proposed change to use the normal RFC2026 appeals process
>> in https://github.com/larseggert/bcp45bis/pull/7/files. This is the
>> current change:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> --- a/draft-eggert-bcp45bis.md
>> >> >>> +++ b/draft-eggert-bcp45bis.md
>> >> >>> @@ -192,8 +192,8 @@ manner.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> 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.
>> >> >>> +decision can be appealed to the IETF Chair, per {{!RFC2026}}.
>> Decisions by the
>> >> >>> +IETF Chair can be appealed to the IESG as whole, again per
>> {{!RFC2026}}.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> # Security Considerations
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Please let me know if this expresses what is desired?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Thanks,
>> >> >>> Lars
>> >> >>>
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Gendispatch mailing list
>> >> > Gendispatch@ietf.org
>> >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Gendispatch mailing list
>> >> Gendispatch@ietf.org
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch
>> > --
>> > Gendispatch mailing list
>> > Gendispatch@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Gendispatch mailing list
>> Gendispatch@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch
>>
> --
> Gendispatch mailing list
> Gendispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch
>