Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 03 July 2013 18:10 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 B57A221F9DB7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 11:10:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YijKvFjVrjTi for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 11:10:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F070C21F9DAB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 11:10:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1UuRW0-0002aG-W1; Wed, 03 Jul 2013 14:10:52 -0400
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 14:10:47 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
Message-ID: <FDE04DA5C72B9B80DCC2FE15@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <1B046143-4B0E-41C0-9F50-09A87206FCE9@kumari.net>
References: <20130702222442.2467.13086.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F12408223F494ECC@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk> <51D45225.1000804@qti.qualcomm.com> <1B046143-4B0E-41C0-9F50-09A87206FCE9@kumari.net>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 18:10:59 -0000
--On Wednesday, July 03, 2013 13:02 -0400 Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote: > Thank you -- another worthwhile thing to do is look at who all > has appealed and ask yourself "Do I really want to be part of > this club?" I am honored to be a member of that club. Remembering that appeals, as others have pointed out, a mechanism for requesting a second look at some issue, they are an important, perhaps vital, part of our process. We probably don't have enough of them. Effectively telling people to not appeal because they will be identified as "kooks" hurts the process model by suppressing what might be legitimate concerns. In addition, it is important to note that the page does _not_ list every appeal since 2002. If one reads Section 6.5 of RFC 2026, it describes a multi-step process for appears in each of a collection of categories. The web page lists only those that were escalated to full IESG review. That is important for two reasons: * The majority of appeals, and a larger majority of those that are consistent with community consensus or technical reasonableness, are resolved well before the issues involved come to the formal attention of the full IESG. If an issue is appealed but discussions with WG Chairs, individuals ADs, or the IETF Chair result in a review of the issues and a satisfactory resolution, then that is an that is completely successful in every respect (including minimization of IETF time) but does not show up in the list on the web page or statistics derived from it. * A few minutes of thought will probably suffice to show you that appeals that have significant merit are far more likely to be resolved at stages prior to full IESG review. By contrast, a hypothetical appeal that was wholly without merit, or even filed with the intent of annoying the IESG, is almost certain to reach the IESG and end up on the list, badly distorting the actual situation. best, john p.s. to any IESG members who are reading this: community understanding of the process might be enhanced by putting a note on the appeals page that is explicit about what that list represents, i.e., only appeals that reached full IESG review and not all appeals. > Other than a *very* small minority of well known and well > respected folk the http://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html page > is basically a handy kook reference.
- RE: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regardin… l.wood
- Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regardin… Bob Hinden
- Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regardin… Randy Bush
- Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regardin… Russ Housley
- Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regardin… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regardin… Dave Crocker
- Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regardin… Jari Arkko
- Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regardin… William McCall
- Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regardin… Pete Resnick
- Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regardin… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Bary… Warren Kumari
- Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Bary… John C Klensin
- Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regardin… Dave Crocker
- Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Bary… Sam Hartman
- Re: Appeal Response to [removed] regarding draft-… SM
- Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regardin… Ted Lemon
- Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Bary… Pete Resnick
- Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Bary… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Appeal Response to [removed] regarding draft-… Eliot Lear
- Re: Appeal Response to [removed] regarding draft-… Michael StJohns
- Re: [IETF] Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdu… Warren Kumari
- RE: [IETF] Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdu… l.wood
- Re: [IETF] Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdu… Doug Barton
- Re: [IETF] Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdu… Dave Cridland
- Re: [IETF] [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussal… Ted Lemon
- Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regardin… Jari Arkko