Re: Terminology discussion threads

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Fri, 14 August 2020 20:41 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 F19013A082B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 13:41:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 zXwHbQTw5aAJ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 13:41:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from antelope.elm.relay.mailchannels.net (antelope.elm.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.212.4]) (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 309413A082A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 13:41:32 -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 088F934017E; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 20:41:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a46.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-12-26.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.12.26]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 3F819341355; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 20:41:31 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a46.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/5.18.8); Fri, 14 Aug 2020 20:41:31 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Abortive-Industry: 5c3a4f1c2f736a03_1597437691739_1594599337
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1597437691739:2792372086
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1597437691738
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a46.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a46.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB8A17F4A2; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 13:41:30 -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=KPpIEX7WWrd7nN i0UgeR+O4lumw=; b=Y6AcsNDvrsOAkNitF0jTyBTdwAOsnGhtO+iha7XlmrAXBf XyaEqagqXKHmdw+1AODzP7Qn9O7fr9LvWmxd1MVk7K56GS5OZAJNDgHG5p1WfhCp GtjgxQHQXHwCMio2G9mY/AKgLTbcPqpJu0DRs0iqSwbpiChcHJlNysMSsfHho=
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-a46.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B86AC7F490; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 13:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 15:41:26 -0500
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a46
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Cc: Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Terminology discussion threads
Message-ID: <20200814204125.GL3100@localhost>
References: <6AA0BCBB-D95B-4036-B94D-5E79E7B94D75@ietf.org> <F15E387D-9FDC-4A76-8002-78B85F6D16BE@nohats.ca> <CABcZeBNitWbdPO4Y2WfCzjy10Z+s27px6cGT1uRHmtGHa5iX+Q@mail.gmail.com> <ed227fd5-3277-d7a9-f93d-b259944009d6@huitema.net> <7ec6f897-fd3e-8a22-cf6e-ea457d745982@lounge.org> <20200814191721.GK92412@kduck.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200814191721.GK92412@kduck.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
X-VR-OUT-STATUS: OK
X-VR-OUT-SCORE: -100
X-VR-OUT-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedrleejgddugeejucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuggftfghnshhusghstghrihgsvgdpffftgfetoffjqffuvfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjfgesthdtredttdervdenucfhrhhomheppfhitghoucghihhllhhirghmshcuoehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpefftdektefhueetveeigfefgeejteejvdfhhefgvddtfeeujeehleeguefhgffhgfenucfkphepvdegrddvkedruddtkedrudekfeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhhouggvpehsmhhtphdphhgvlhhopehlohgtrghlhhhoshhtpdhinhgvthepvdegrddvkedruddtkedrudekfedprhgvthhurhhnqdhprghthheppfhitghoucghihhllhhirghmshcuoehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhmqedpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhmpdhnrhgtphhtthhopehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhm
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/5P1A7bo6H1mV7iREBce9A8-AL70>
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: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 20:41:35 -0000

On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 12:17:21PM -0700, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>                                     [...].  Rather, the departure of many
> prominent IETF contributors from the membership list of ietf@ietf.org has
> placed us in a (or, perhaps, excacerbated an existing) situation where the
> membership of what is nominally the "general IETF discussion list" is not
> representative of the IETF community.  As someone who is, at times, charged
> with assessing IETF consensus, I feel that this calls into question the
> utility of the ietf@ietf.org list for determining consensus.  Personally, I
> now have significant doubts that the results of discussion on ietf@ietf.org
> will reflect IETF consensus.  [...]

That's a problem then, because the RFC publication process for the IETF
requires IETF-wide Last Calls.  Rather than abandon the list,
subscribers who are unhappy with certain debates should ignore them.

Damaging or destroying the IETF's ability to publish RFCs is truly
extreme, whether intentional or otherwise.  I'm not saying that taking
destructive steps could never be justified, but I am saying it's
extreme, and in this case not justified or not yet.

Nico
--