Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"?

Michael Thomas <> Mon, 19 April 2021 21:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E8E73A2770 for <>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 14:14:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.15
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OSPHr1XqhzJE for <>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 14:14:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1032]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E6B53A279B for <>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 14:14:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id y22-20020a17090a8b16b0290150ae1a6d2bso2344934pjn.0 for <>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 14:14:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=fluffulence; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=YRrYMLLoMcS+IJTA26UFt6JZIn/bxfFEloefsCLmyuw=; b=czvN9fu1IWy1PY1u+T4GZqkQ/Vv70Nv7tEetcXU4P6IUhPvz5yvtKRwCgjqZ19OJPR eh6LAufdIUOuInISiT5jgPKRn6qLMip7I+EXGVnZ+/YG91SnuEARgvYesYP9bq7EgVBB p8NJErV4ugj8ZaoS12rvBtUdhN1b/Ua/g5+aON2SgOzQANq1ozqiFmrK19fiHbIUoZYj dKL3/qnHcEdi7bzLTX+0TbmqxRMW9SMUO6ZLVxaYy2aAHVvDQBWviZzQPRaamSCc65r1 cgEkgS3nxWv6zVQb1XCbSGH4eeNuyDDl518h14KPmj5/7s/nm+TKSu7C5QQVGf8ue98G Rasw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=YRrYMLLoMcS+IJTA26UFt6JZIn/bxfFEloefsCLmyuw=; b=p3eW5Uuqtsz5RWyvzI+tF/9/hQusPIU+xeJGhbAaeFC1h6DHzm29Vjpqz/E7TxDQjP y3MtdhSYG0EOGqN7quNKlAMkkXzbnCnSyrO3UpbSrIllTo8C+U9UAKw7RFjwxUVjA9aX vf3w1Q6xD2UuZc2Xg7OK0gtHbVx252PLzcLt948j435JDd5vjsk9AMW8+qFzMpQbaEGi f4fKG6tBIEAsyqrnoaBOo3mobr75uYXoGgyhCv44Vw+fF28c4uLyr1Fzsdi1mGW00e2q 8U7DCZXUil3S0ZTfdJ5GzAgc0Km/zVx4R8yyyYut0LlUxiY84Jfs1cgO95wIeXLW3Ig+ gt1g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531H11oETo7d2gJLyYoyTnuSU4bu5FrdDHn9ri0IZLxSFSmWewXI bV7WJomqy7oO2wrRFgdN1C4XgT18AZK+Wg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxlsevMg3Yow5D+Dqw29XlHA0LrZ0MberS4WBas6jT3yVVVDlGdOhvm3wLx7QdaDFl7PBEABQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:6582:: with SMTP id k2mr1117179pjj.11.1618866853083; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 14:14:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mike-mac.lan ( []) by with ESMTPSA id v13sm13369870pfu.54.2021. for <> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 19 Apr 2021 14:14:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"?
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Michael Thomas <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 14:14:11 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 21:14:28 -0000

On 4/19/21 2:00 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
> On 4/19/21 4:09 PM, Leif Johansson wrote:
>> On 2021-04-19 21:46, Keith Moore wrote:
>>> On 4/19/21 11:51 AM, Leif Johansson wrote:
>>>>> In other words, they can spend all of their time politely 
>>>>> explaining in detail why proposals are Bad Ideas, instead of 
>>>>> getting useful work done.
>>>> Point to where the useful work will be done if we don’t stop this.
>>> I don't want to either dismiss your concern (which I share) or sound 
>>> flippant, but I also wonder where the useful work will be done if we 
>>> DO stop this.
>> I appreciate your attempt to keep sticking to your point and trying 
>> to be serious
>> about it but... I just don't buy the IETF as the group of brilliant 
>> but tortured
>> souls who have "snarl" at each other to make themselves heard over 
>> the din of "Bad
>> Ideas".
> Well, again, I'm not even sure we're all talking about the same thing 
> when we use the word "snarling".   And while I'm pretty sure that we 
> need a way to push back on Bad Ideas, I'm not sure that what people 
> are calling "snarling" is only or even mostly about discouraging Bad 
> Ideas.   Maybe, for example, some of it is about "baggage" - old 
> resentments for hard-fought battles lost, perceived insults, or even 
> genuinely bad behavior.
Since I was the one who introduced "snarling" to the conversation 
(sheesh, do I get a gold star or what?), what I was referring to was 
coming with, say, security concerns and in my case the document author 
quite literally snarled at me, or as best you can tell over email. I 
feel somewhat vindicated since they ended up writing an entire 
informational RFC on what I pointed out as being a no-no, but nobody 
cares in the real world and the vulnerability is still there out in the 
wild to be exploited. In that particular case there was a *huge* amount 
of incentive to sweep it under the rug, and that's exactly what happened.