IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hrpc] I-D Action: draft-irtf-hrpc-political-04.txt

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Tue, 17 September 2019 15:03 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1237B120928 for <hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 08:03:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=Gw105ngR; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=m7cl/sjE
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 atsnJao7BYiq for <hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 08:03:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D99851208E7 for <hrpc@irtf.org>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 08:03:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF9C3BCC7D for <hrpc@irtf.org>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 15:02:59 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1568732579; bh=YeeGVfyixrugY7+KIMaV1UvfcSrtTDFS2od4DnPP6c0=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Gw105ngRjp+FfrpxJeg9DCdu8Bf+fmlnv4SPoc20/Xq93sOm6RB9PC1og7YnC+Jmi V2GCjQurzJWxL4U7LNBbZA0VEKMtxTSu2auX9h/JDfkdCVGp6wg83C8yTeMKX3aZjx yGRfpVmYS1SbO55YDJtNpTIeRerAgMvuSvVM9WYk=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L3mFjJa2Sp_J for <hrpc@irtf.org>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 15:02:58 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 11:02:53 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1568732578; bh=YeeGVfyixrugY7+KIMaV1UvfcSrtTDFS2od4DnPP6c0=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=m7cl/sjEPaBDlLzTxcFYviVJ+8fg1l/sG2m69zqQrdX0nTzaLfTKyx+CvuAS+b5D8 RyawJb1qzaUiDBJGMpL/eKXiwcRqtURYz1IR35DgI+AR5Y6xu36Lfy89BzSCBPqM/K hZpqdgjqg9UsaDji/gP0QkjaQhwYOGx1VloigM78=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: hrpc@irtf.org
Message-ID: <20190917150253.m3oexerna7sdpieu@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <2927d15d-30a2-189b-7a68-dfb11f5f5be0@nielstenoever.net> <980ffdbd-79fa-96ca-541c-09107b550531@doria.org> <5FEE04EF-307F-4A11-9ED4-E9B7394527AC@cisco.com> <35d4da40-fd0b-2ee9-3cc1-0c250ae1e93a@doria.org> <2CAFB54D-8435-45D5-8996-DEE6175B48A3@fugue.com> <d98e744e-11ee-09b9-0d38-4f5150692ff0@nielstenoever.net> <B4E48D50-5A76-4056-BBE4-39FBDB4EA155@fugue.com> <21470bee-2db1-0571-dea1-00832e01fa8f@nielstenoever.net> <CE7F61F5-B11C-4DE7-853B-3CA1AA0F3167@fugue.com> <99988D9D-B17F-4BAF-9FDB-4998D4572B1D@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <99988D9D-B17F-4BAF-9FDB-4998D4572B1D@cisco.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hrpc/Mtv0FCbyDEblE8Oq2HUhtQtJM10>
Subject: Re: [hrpc] I-D Action: draft-irtf-hrpc-political-04.txt
X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "mail@nielstenoever.net" <hrpc.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/hrpc>, <mailto:hrpc-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/hrpc/>
List-Post: <mailto:hrpc@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hrpc-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc>, <mailto:hrpc-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 15:03:05 -0000

Hi,

Speaking as usual only for myself (but I am employed by the Internet
Society).

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 04:23:24PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
>   And this boils down a bit to “Whose document is it anyway?”  RGs have some latitude on this, by the way: this document does not need to be a consensus view.  But if it is, then our differences should be explored.
>

I simply don't understand why that self-imposed rule is being followed
in this case anyway.  It has been long clear, in my opinion, that the
authors of this document have a strong view they wish to press, and
that they will do so.  Several of us have extremely serious
reservations about that view (for my part, I have given up on making
those arguments, because I was unsatisfied with the way they were
addressed and I just don't have the time to invest to continue to
press the point).  In such an environment, a consensus document will
either be too watery to be interesting or else will not really
represent consensus.  The solution to such a dilemma is surely to
refuse the conditions that make it possible.  No?

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email