Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"

Joe Touch <> Tue, 27 November 2012 21:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F007421F8201 for <>; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 13:21:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.542
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.542 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.057, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xtlqke91oIXI for <>; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 13:21:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75A1E21F84B9 for <>; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 13:21:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qARLKSeW015248 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 27 Nov 2012 13:20:28 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 13:20:28 -0800
From: Joe Touch <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Marc Blanchet <>
Subject: Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Cc: Barry Leiba <>, IETF discussion list <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 21:21:07 -0000

On 11/27/2012 10:07 AM, Marc Blanchet wrote:
> Le 2012-11-27 à 13:00, Barry Leiba a écrit :
>> So here's my question:
>> Does the community want us to push back on those situations?  Does the
>> community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing
>> lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to the extent that the
>> community would want the IESG to refuse to publish documents whose
>> process went as I've described above, on the basis that IETF process
>> was not properly followed?
> no. Our work is done both on mailing lists and f2f meetings. As co-chair
> of a few wg, we have been doing great progress during f2f meeting with
> high-bandwidth interactions.

RFC2418 says that "business" happens in either place:

    All working group actions shall be taken in a public forum, and wide
    participation is encouraged. A working group will conduct much of its
    business via electronic mail distribution lists but may meet
    periodically to discuss and review task status and progress, to
    resolve specific issues and to direct future activities. ...

Overall, WG *decisions* are supposed to be "consensus of the WG", not 
just those who happen to be present at a given meeting, so I would 
expect that such decisions would be confirmed on the mailing list even 
if initiated at a meeting. At most meetings I've attended, this is how 
action items were confirmed.

So my conclusion is that:
	- activity/participation can happen in either place
	- consensus should include mailing list confirmation



> so document shepherd and AD should exercise judgement on how to see the
> community consensus/participation.
> Marc.
>> I realize that this question is going to elicit some vehemence.
>> Please be brief and polite, as you respond.  :-)
>> Barry, Applications AD