Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Thu, 25 April 2019 16:57 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 3D84E1201C2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 09:57:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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 VDFBr1dt14yQ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 09:57:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from goldenrod.birch.relay.mailchannels.net (goldenrod.birch.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.209.74]) (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 083921201DC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 09:57:19 -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 D88F12C1DED; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 16:57:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a23.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-11-130.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.11.130]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id F37FC2C1F64; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 16:57:17 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a23.g.dreamhost.com ([TEMPUNAVAIL]. [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/5.17.2); Thu, 25 Apr 2019 16:57:18 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Oafish-Wiry: 25f87a7321f018ef_1556211438497_631322750
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1556211438496:3021112518
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1556211438496
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a23.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a23.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66E6A81CFD; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 09:57:12 -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=Qrq5nL2/fVqIj0 WUy3BkW2rl6M8=; b=pLpKCAxLqA/q2jPI928OUFPou2PR7cURXj1kECfDuyOQn8 4i8j9Rax4CjLCd141aAoxzHjBKvDWqiA+dZmprlYbYx2Lwm/1UfW885XjiPlqg4y kAvyezWmuDfKrdd4IYM78U0XdLAI6TM7tziqvq6gwDjjjhaOQjHW1X4zoKuys=
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-a23.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 55EBB81CF8; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 09:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2019 11:57:07 -0500
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a23
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Cc: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev
Message-ID: <20190425165706.GU3137@localhost>
References: <20190424201939.GM3137@localhost> <6.2.5.6.2.20190424134823.0c9faf68@elandnews.com> <20190424211123.GO3137@localhost> <6.2.5.6.2.20190424144539.0cabcde0@elandnews.com> <20190424234334.GQ3137@localhost> <07c201d4fb45$c78e8b70$56aba250$@olddog.co.uk> <20190425160440.GR3137@localhost> <f01d28f3-7053-4f0e-7074-ae05848a1ddd@gmail.com> <20190425162115.GT3137@localhost> <65c74cf0-1f86-9e17-45f8-7df0e688efd5@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <65c74cf0-1f86-9e17-45f8-7df0e688efd5@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
X-VR-OUT-STATUS: OK
X-VR-OUT-SCORE: -100
X-VR-OUT-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduuddrheeggddutdejucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuggftfghnshhusghstghrihgsvgdpffftgfetoffjqffuvfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjfgesthdtredttdervdenucfhrhhomheppfhitghoucghihhllhhirghmshcuoehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhmqeenucfkphepvdegrddvkedruddtkedrudekfeenucfrrghrrghmpehmohguvgepshhmthhppdhhvghloheplhhotggrlhhhohhsthdpihhnvghtpedvgedrvdekrddutdekrddukeefpdhrvghtuhhrnhdqphgrthhhpefpihgtohcuhghilhhlihgrmhhsuceonhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomheqpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhepnhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomhdpnhhrtghpthhtohepnhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/AeOX7w3F9RW7zeiTXIwR3RcBjrc>
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, 25 Apr 2019 16:57:22 -0000

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 05:37:47PM +0100, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> On 25/04/2019 17:21, Nico Williams wrote:
> > I did not know that an (all) AD's decision not to sponsor could be
> > appealed.  I don't see how a recall petition over the ADs' refusal to
> > sponsor could be anything other than frivolous.
> 
> It is my understanding that in the IETF the will of the community overrules
> the will of the IESG. Thus, if there is community will for something, the
> IESG must either resign or concede. That is why we need to last call
> anything of significance.
> 
> Whether such a recall would be frivolous would firstly be a matter for
> the community to decide in terms of gathering the required signatures, and
> then it be would be a matter for the recall committee to decide.

Sure.  I don't disagree with any of that.

I suppose that if the current slate of ADs all felt personally
threatened by the current proposal, then that might be grounds for
recalling them.  That's just not my take for what's going on.  And the
fact that the author has a way forward makes me think it's not a big
deal to just have a BoF.