IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Saying no

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Thu, 27 March 2014 23:46 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0A6D1A0743; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:46:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 UUAyKK2FwhW7; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:46:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F36011A072E; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:46:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mb-aye.local ([173.247.205.34]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s2RNkFZo013294 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 27 Mar 2014 23:46:16 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Message-ID: <5334B847.6030205@bogus.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:46:15 -0700
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:28.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/28.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>, John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
Subject: Re: Saying no
References: <CF59AE52.16403%wesley.george@twcable.com> <53349FFB.7050108@qti.qualcomm.com> <m2r45nfdwk.wl%randy@psg.com> <20140327233422.GD87785@verdi> <20140327234136.GC51988@mx1.yitter.info>
In-Reply-To: <20140327234136.GC51988@mx1.yitter.info>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ju9wvwH6XCACEIQV2iF3DW3MCETf5hJWv"
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]); Thu, 27 Mar 2014 23:46:16 +0000 (UTC)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/3HncJBSEUjcuRYo7lL_h_OBjLW8
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, IETF Disgust <ietf@ietf.org>, opsec wg mailing list <opsec@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 27 Mar 2014 23:46:19 -0000

On 3/27/14, 4:41 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 07:34:22PM -0400, John Leslie wrote:
>>
>>    The sad truth is, the IESG no longer has the spare cycles to "Just
>> say No."

responsible AD here.

I take the IETF LC input with the gravitas that's appropriate. the IESG
review occurs after the LC.

> I was on the receiving end of an IESG that simply stalled a document
> until the WG changed its approach, because of IETF concerns, so I
> disagree with that claim.  But if it is true, then we might as well
> give up.  If there's weak IETF consensus (with some strong objections)
> to a document that comes from a WG and has strong consensus inside the
> WG, the _only_ people who can say no are the IESG; and they must.
>
> Best regards,
> 
> A
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email