Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] WG Adoption

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 05 June 2014 22:51 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C7E51A02B5; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 15:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 potQvuSBikrX; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 15:51:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x235.google.com (mail-pd0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4C4E1A025B; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 15:51:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f181.google.com with SMTP id z10so1667929pdj.26 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 05 Jun 2014 15:51:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=mIL8IXxjFc2iffj2gWTJ87ijj16vdm0+86qEN2anmlE=; b=OcdHZwZ/+WyDtwIisgHM6eXJp0ZokqZwcrCnVFCIGf5mHZKy7jNccaqFKur+3ZEvps 34uxl/1Ps1DIBVN6PQxD1togbY488zwu9KUj9AWZsqoNatzQE5kPYIXH3PstLDjeXQ3A PAonL5RbKHP0G/sML00badqmKiks9EYz7PpsvXaBh7GoLk3bsWo7/7gOp8pPXoMLfAvn AZ+C0hrxDXDtyvft5Dm8LFXIjAbgvD1+B9wct6vYgjvr7XhpbyHbtHg56LSjkekbYbVH XkHtUaJyzueiUhunThmkPvhp3hNOLKMuRgFOT4G4AmxCfK8/OK/8OmNHyEQI8t6+WkEx DzBg==
X-Received: by 10.69.31.11 with SMTP id ki11mr1393781pbd.88.1402008687434; Thu, 05 Jun 2014 15:51:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.23] (13.199.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.199.13]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id oa3sm27594497pbb.15.2014.06.05.15.51.25 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Jun 2014 15:51:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5390F475.7080702@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 10:51:33 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
References: <E87B771635882B4BA20096B589152EF628724B2C@eusaamb107.ericsson.se> <539016BE.3070008@gmx.net> <53906711.5070406@cs.tcd.ie> <5390D2F8.6000801@gmail.com> <5390D632.3040907@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <5390D632.3040907@joelhalpern.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-privacy/_51XqVAwa3_x0n73HPXo-ohw5LQ
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 08:11:55 -0700
Cc: "ietf-privacy@ietf.org" <ietf-privacy@ietf.org>, int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] WG Adoption
X-BeenThere: ietf-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Privacy Discussion List <ietf-privacy.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-privacy>, <mailto:ietf-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-privacy/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-privacy@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy>, <mailto:ietf-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 22:51:36 -0000

On 06/06/2014 08:42, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> Brian, in my experience working group adoption is more than the working
> group agreeing to work on the topic.  It is generally the working group
> agreeing that the given document is a good basis for starting the work.
>  Yes, there will almost always be need for improvement.  Sometimes major
> improvement.  But it is an agreement that this is a good starting point.
> 
> Without commenting on the specific document, leaving out that
> consideration in your response to Stephen makes the discussion MUCH harder.

Well, not harder than suggesting immediate /dev/null I think.

Also, there is history here (RFC6269 and RFC6967) so I think it's
clear that the topic is appropriate for the WG. There is a real
problem caused by NAT, compared with the theoretically normal
case where the host's globally unique address is visible to all.

   Brian

> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 6/5/14, 4:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> ...
>> I have to call you on that. WG adoption is not approval. It's agreement
>> to work on a topic. It is not OK to attempt a pocket veto on adoption
>> because you don't like the existing content.
> ...
>