IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Dispute process (Was: Resignation request)

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Wed, 11 March 2020 22:52 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 956D13A0914 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 15:52:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 7EfFEkzZzTH7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 15:52:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12f.google.com (mail-lf1-x12f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 937D03A0912 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 15:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12f.google.com with SMTP id b13so3124967lfb.12 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 15:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=dBZzo6uWe56xn+gPLAhcG0huV2+SB8Qz0xb/MWUNFKo=; b=KmoMa8ZsgyOGOzFpapqkGZtFo78e/8/dHny0kUoCgJFu22pRj9gSVkr1nARsjnvAFL DO+MMugDHzIQIvRM8dkOQD9oT3LzN+2RHMfM59kQUKGYAkeI7b0gOdFiNIQatP0Bf8uW 1bKJ+luaVpLFA/kCE/g/nHT89iMpqyBAPxAqwt5bTySK8l94IpfML4HDoDb6X/7g0HIW L5bkXiS1f/75n84PxfnBA6Ttf5HnSxTJcEd19VIPEPQuHCPECUmJzMZykhLqJJ1u3ywG CC6fp5k4r29m1OUx2Ull5qZAjngHcdMz06kMDij4CgbSSL078p1B6ULSwOt5cRDMcLGk f4YA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=dBZzo6uWe56xn+gPLAhcG0huV2+SB8Qz0xb/MWUNFKo=; b=DUU5Gx/+ExNCSO8HRKB2rxXTILFB0KmPSAzSYLHIIhsUeLpM5kY1icPSIjLttc8xAi kf+1lnVIbE3p9GrhEGfU0CthAjL5LrL6DNbkZDJklUBZUsR7iQhKmHzZkSPL8M/RSy4a mRcV9Q8io0LZozR4eICcZRqWwjhQWEE23sy3KlZOOcjROHrWOZpuGGctJQrTjIJduu28 InX07YIGx7OP1n/gI4doEyqCYgVI3QLoV+AKa5PMPOvDNl6wf1p705BYfau5oosofN2U nya5xMXPXtaSBSiouq6PhrFPfpQl8tzbkSQ0EDIdrBtYaLuzg9xyUF24J4jAFv50Txjj 3cZA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ01kdCrIg6GSChdGsKzXCXVH+6eopCHulsLYyRNUAPw1tqK1sCT gIw4gyRtaYwuSqm4E1OI2Si50Zkn2o8EfsnekqGImuBPiSY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vvmLpTt6qIWQUesRMJiJ8VTfYBjant0Hxq8fwdGn3gux96JzlphgEUOOGJdZnZdEjqLwA4UsUAuojMl0Zosr/4=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:511a:: with SMTP id q26mr3327371lfb.161.1583967172843; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 15:52:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <3EF6505C-D442-41A4-A681-26ACF818BB4D@sobco.com> <C7B7787A-48E5-407F-9E81-BDEC2F1B2169@steffann.nl> <6651697D-A892-4CAB-BDC1-E385750294D3@gmail.com> <a708fc17-c799-2767-4a35-033b063456f5@pi.nu> <CA+q+MpU6-36xTzZL_-B-9fG8atfOiOF5-rdxFFVQV9_y8GOd8Q@mail.gmail.com> <20200310154115.GX18021@localhost> <EF46D631-4553-4378-9260-6E23BE94B14E@episteme.net> <20200310184518.GY18021@localhost> <9AB7F383-1220-4D90-BD8F-B672AF473BE9@episteme.net> <alpine.LRH.2.21.2003110930290.31299@bofh.nohats.ca> <20200311214928.GF18021@localhost> <CABcZeBM1LnigpsnXW7kcH19+0aMHWJwmQ=8=To5mr_EJU-QF-g@mail.gmail.com> <009901d5f7f7$69d335d0$3d79a170$@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <009901d5f7f7$69d335d0$3d79a170$@acm.org>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 15:52:15 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBPR9V+gzxC7cxJQcYoFNBMag5_sM-PPPCoQOUpjzOr9nw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Dispute process (Was: Resignation request)
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Cc: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ac6a0805a09c18d7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/30AyDRnR-3ZMbqN98dxwfKH9VKs>
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: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 22:52:57 -0000

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 3:50 PM Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org> wrote:

> Nico wrote
>
> Then take this to the limit.  Suppose we did some number TLS extensions
> this way, with several overlapping somewhat, but in ways the authors did
> not care to unify.  What would happen?
>
>
>
> -Ekr wrote:
>
> > Well, we're running this experiment now, and have been ever since late
> 2018, so I guess we'll find out. So far it does not seem to have been an
> issue.
>
>
>
> The “running code” part of “ rough consensus” seems useful in resolving
> disputes about a working group dropping or disagreeing to some work.
>

Perhaps.


However, what we found is that we were spending quite a bit of time
evaluating documents when what the authors really wanted was a code point.
This change has reduced the need for that.


-Ekr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email