IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: On diversity in the NomCom

Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Thu, 16 July 2020 16:11 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 6D3943A0B63 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 09:11:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.121
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.121 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 RYJKUvnfi2nF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 09:11:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (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 316B33A0B65 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 09:11:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B6zlD6Ffwz1nsRR; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 09:11:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1594915880; bh=/u0lEzNKhut2erI2fQac9yRMtjKxryn18NIOEfKPlwU=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=b/3OSQZgV6mKfAAnJMSd1LxJOUgBNWwUB7OG2bw/pQJsaj4JZXZ7IladY/EplZMw2 3x/Jyt4BczdyjFS7/OCiruLVCG+4s37o7vNYkM+rB39kJgEQLQCrEr4E/uTbMumctE 0ykZT8xt684gAertCAoJ4wDxE1vC/mws5T73nTGs=
X-Quarantine-ID: <TuS2w8aJ0ciy>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4B6zlD1TkSz1nsQP; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 09:11:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: On diversity in the NomCom
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <7429392e-a411-4c40-8fa9-f03de558b7ca@dogfood.fastmail.com> <d3187a20-76a8-0ef9-d32f-6b8e400a0d30@gmail.com> <ee517835-1ad4-e2c0-a33b-e194f7c37f95@gmail.com> <CAChr6SxXwKwwtXxL+9f2Zz8kufpnOLmHHkK-dY6PC+k9mNE4+w@mail.gmail.com> <16772aec-9ead-3658-16c8-dfbcdfa19edc@gmail.com> <CAChr6Sy+a=ziSH-D8Q+wQLDA6rEXg2SfiE+4V7trr2z20kQs9Q@mail.gmail.com> <2D8F8708458BF390168BD5EC@PSB> <A3B22E6E-8A16-4C1F-B3BF-30D27DCE1616@akamai.com>
From: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <2b5fc4b5-ea50-7d7f-2e8c-6a4d8126d38d@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 12:11:18 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <A3B22E6E-8A16-4C1F-B3BF-30D27DCE1616@akamai.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/5ZLq3GGUOYRa5Ns8JZmZ0iXoX9o>
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: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 16:11:23 -0000

If we were to do what?  Publish IETF Stream (rough consensus) 
Informational and Experimental RFCs?  We already do that.  And have done 
so for many years.

If you are trying to argue that we should use a different form of 
publication, please make and justify that argument.  There is lots of 
disinformation and misinformation out there.  (I recently observed 
another SDO citing an expired individual draft as if it were an approved 
RFC.)

Yours,
Joel

On 7/16/2020 11:04 AM, Salz, Rich wrote:
>> I also note that many other SDOs publish informative,
> non-standard, documents in the form of technical reports and
> that things we would call Experimental (or our original
> definition of Proposed Standard) show up as things "for trial
> use".  So, again, fwiw, we are not the only, or even the first,
> body to conclude that formal review, consensus, and publication
> of such documents is a practical necessity.
> 
> If we were to do this, we need another term besides RFC.  After 20 years, everyone "knows" that RFC means an Internet standard.
> 
> (Yes, I exaggerate about what everyone knows)
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email