Re: Montevideo statement

Tobias Gondrom <> Wed, 09 October 2013 16:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41FE421F9DDE for <>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 09:03:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -95.362
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-95.362 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x1I8-rI3PV92 for <>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 09:03:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDC9421F9B9F for <>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 09:02:19 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default;; b=YMoKFBkGSkh6nR6yafhc3W+B0mzwY9hKDGdQW04OqQRgG153NFhmFltF9ckEKP+LRBQqVNnAqLwZ7K+o5JsR7ythneQbOkAM9CD3F4Y5kAlq8pH/R4bFqZux/XMFCJmM; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:X-Enigmail-Version:Content-Type;
Received: (qmail 5341 invoked from network); 9 Oct 2013 18:02:18 +0200
Received: from (HELO ? ( by with ESMTPSA (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 9 Oct 2013 18:02:18 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 17:02:17 +0100
From: Tobias Gondrom <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Montevideo statement
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070002060707010302050908"
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: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 16:03:57 -0000

On 09/10/13 14:14, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Oct 9, 2013, at 6:45 AM, Tobias Gondrom <> wrote:
>> But I support SM's proposal that it would be good
>> to do a few days comment period for such important statements in the
>> future - if timing is not critical. There is no harm in a few days delay
>> and getting input from the community.
> This is a nice theory, but the usual last call time at IETF is either two weeks or four weeks, not a few days, and that's for a good reason.  I think there is no way that a statement of the type we are discussing can ever represent IETF consensus unless we go through an actual consensus call.
> So the real question here is, is it ever appropriate for the chair of the IAB or the chair of the IETF to sign a statement like this without getting consensus?   I think that's a good question, and I don't have a strong opinion on the answer.   But if the answer is that we need consensus, then we actually need to do a consensus call.
> The only value I see in "a few days" would be an opportunity for wordsmithing—as someone pointed out, the current statement could be read as expressing concern that secrets were leaked, rather than concern about what was done in secret, and it would have been nice if that wording could have been corrected.   If that is what you were asking for, then that does make sense.
> (thinking out loud...)

Yes, that is what is was thinking about. Probably wisdom of the crowds
could have helped with the wordsmithing part.
And in my view even some little feedback (3-7 days) is better than none.
And just to be clear: with such a short comment option, the goal is just
comments not to get a rough consensus.

All the best, Tobias