IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Terminology discussion threads

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Thu, 13 August 2020 19:55 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53C843A10AC; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 12:55:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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=cryptonector.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 jxn4Dvrwr1PP; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 12:55:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from crocodile.birch.relay.mailchannels.net (crocodile.birch.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.209.45]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE4833A095A; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 12:55:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B650F21BA9; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 19:55:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a56.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-9-43.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.9.43]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 3436421AE1; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 19:55:18 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a56.g.dreamhost.com (pop.dreamhost.com [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/5.18.8); Thu, 13 Aug 2020 19:55:18 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Lyrical-Name: 4041c5443391f897_1597348518479_795421037
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1597348518479:2379729931
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1597348518479
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a56.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a56.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F15A83EE8; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 12:55:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; s= cryptonector.com; bh=OaoCz7+lIiCbH9MJJuo0Ht6W0BI=; b=wK3dMUfDAKq +ELUgU+Jn5Gnw6A9JTxrSU9FmFEf34NHRiwlZ2zBJh10N3a4LBzsqrOT1EIlLQph oIACLyvpwYzpkD+qeLvE2Bm1zZH4DZeqzJi52yvdro6bg/c3/UYI+sS/BvQ+iNOg LNdPzSCwjK46vXZPyq85TeLuwq5vh5DE=
Received: from localhost (unknown [24.28.108.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a56.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 98FA983EB0; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 12:55:13 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 14:55:11 -0500
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a56
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: "Carlos M. Martinez" <carlosm3011@gmail.com>
Cc: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, IETF Sergeant-at-Arms <saa@ietf.org>, IETF Rinse Repeat <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Terminology discussion threads
Message-ID: <20200813195509.GG3100@localhost>
References: <9ABDC2BC-E6A3-4249-99C5-F0BB3683A03D@ietf.org> <223A1539-30B0-424A-89D1-A968FFD4C140@symbolic.software> <aceec35c-ccc8-ccca-7a5b-7d23746f67e2@ietf.org> <A9BB633C-3278-406C-BD38-748646D7E454@symbolic.software> <C4BC10B5-6F65-451F-8B15-98AA8D54966A@ietf.org> <m2sgcq4fq1.wl-randy@psg.com> <20200813181549.GA27732@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <6EDEF995-7D31-42D4-83C7-B9C406962516@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6EDEF995-7D31-42D4-83C7-B9C406962516@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
X-VR-OUT-STATUS: OK
X-VR-OUT-SCORE: -100
X-VR-OUT-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedrleehgdduudejucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuggftfghnshhusghstghrihgsvgdpffftgfetoffjqffuvfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtugfgjggfsehtkeertddtreejnecuhfhrohhmpefpihgtohcuhghilhhlihgrmhhsuceonhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepgedviedvgefgtdfhtefghfeuffeglefggefhvdfgtdffhfevffeiheffieeuudefnecukfhppedvgedrvdekrddutdekrddukeefnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmohguvgepshhmthhppdhhvghloheplhhotggrlhhhohhsthdpihhnvghtpedvgedrvdekrddutdekrddukeefpdhrvghtuhhrnhdqphgrthhhpefpihgtohcuhghilhhlihgrmhhsuceonhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomheqpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhepnhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomhdpnhhrtghpthhtohepnhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomh
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-H_hRihqLq9CvnHXdUvGfclCwJw>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 19:55:21 -0000

On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 04:17:29PM -0300, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
> On 13 Aug 2020, at 15:15, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> > Randy: There seems to be more than rough consensus from many IETF
> > leadership
> > representatives that this is the right course of action from the number
> > of
> > +1 reactions to this thread.
> 
> There may have been more “+1”s, but declaring consensus on this issue would
> be… adventurous… to put it mildly.

The key words were "...from many IETF leadership representatives".
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                            ^^^^

To me it looks like the quoted text is not even claiming consensus among
IETF leadership, let alone the IETF.  If anything, it's acknowledging
the _lack_ of consensus.  However, it may just be poorly phrased.  Maybe
Toerless meant that the IETF leadership considers the +1s as evidence of
rough consensus.  Funny that there should be more +1s than -1s given
that expressing disapproval gets one a suspension from the SAA.  Or that
we should determine consensus democratically now when that's not normal
procedure.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email