IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Tue, 31 March 2020 19:00 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 733ED3A276C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 12:00:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-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=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 pt5-86LaOJh9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 12:00:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from egyptian.birch.relay.mailchannels.net (egyptian.birch.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.209.56]) (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 3C8B93A273C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 12:00:17 -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 687594013EF; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 19:00:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a91.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-1-39.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.1.39]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 59152400B5D; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 19:00:13 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a91.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/5.18.6); Tue, 31 Mar 2020 19:00:14 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Broad-Oafish: 4a22a374594b4b7d_1585681213657_2539963518
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1585681213657:2640142513
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1585681213656
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a91.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a91.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1044B1195; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 12:00:12 -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; s=cryptonector.com; bh=JylQ3S8+POLhvt hYLi6gMdfJHuA=; b=bVQHexFNpK1ML6dWmtE14F7E/BnfKAlOt3hU0VI43CwFpr X50Ae8z2LQlQ7CkubTtPZfzgq/mVTQZt5VtNy9n2DPHnHvhHsw9GIU269P33Lvc6 kZDzM7Eomkjc1ma2/2MVV/Ux1ZHy9357M7dvV8DewY1pKbvvpw/ty9+9AmyE8=
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-a91.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C6617B1191; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 12:00:11 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 14:00:09 -0500
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a91
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
Message-ID: <20200331185954.GU18021@localhost>
References: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVAhfFLYwzqw6Qch3BpuMvqjZPzFJ5o1iTOwR+yqH8j-Aw@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVCzMPGuunYZBCSh90ddY2kKJ_Hqnot0s1jmhNQ7qT0xkg@mail.gmail.com> <89730DD8-0451-4658-A0CD-83A85E2055FE@episteme.net> <0C31D020-46FA-424E-8FFD-64BBE8F952E9@cooperw.in> <1E702B62-9982-48F2-B8D6-F4F80A8DE168@episteme.net> <20200331184236.GT18021@localhost> <CALaySJ+_+-kf+3nta8LwMiwPmqPmRdOgC7KAnDfeDgx0ThVa-w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJ+_+-kf+3nta8LwMiwPmqPmRdOgC7KAnDfeDgx0ThVa-w@mail.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: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrtddtgdeljecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggvpdfftffgtefojffquffvnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpeffhffvuffkfhggtggujggfsehttdertddtredvnecuhfhrohhmpefpihgtohcuhghilhhlihgrmhhsuceonhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomheqnecukfhppedvgedrvdekrddutdekrddukeefnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmohguvgepshhmthhppdhhvghloheplhhotggrlhhhohhsthdpihhnvghtpedvgedrvdekrddutdekrddukeefpdhrvghtuhhrnhdqphgrthhhpefpihgtohcuhghilhhlihgrmhhsuceonhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomheqpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhepnhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomhdpnhhrtghpthhtohepnhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomh
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/1vnL5HODKqmvwjtSKam3s_sBIeA>
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: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 19:00:34 -0000

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 02:49:40PM -0400, Barry Leiba wrote:
> > Whereas the IESG just making a decision w/o a Last Call based on a claim
> > to authority that is -presumably?!- not subject to appeal... strikes me
> > as even more negative an outcome than an inconclusive LC.
> 
> To be clear on this point: Any IESG decision is subject to the normal
> appeal process.  An appeal could be filed regardless of which way we
> handle this (with or without a BCP).

Thanks for clarifying that.  That's a relief.

My preference is still for the IESG submitting an I-D and Last Calling
it, and I exhort the IESG to do that.

Nico
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email