IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: What to improve? BCP-38/SAC-004 anyone?

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 31 December 2015 22:59 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86BCE1A9025 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 14:59:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 0ypkpGSXoLOp for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 14:59:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D6441A9024 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 14:59:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3AE5203AB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 18:06:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68B6F6379D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:59:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: What to improve? BCP-38/SAC-004 anyone?
In-Reply-To: <5684FCDB.7010009@mnt.se>
References: <7664F94E-F7A6-4556-B1E6-2DE536A7B7FC@frobbit.se> <5684FCDB.7010009@mnt.se>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:59:06 -0500
Message-ID: <16202.1451602746@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/BmDbEYGSXLWTuzE525HSS0PPhi8>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 31 Dec 2015 22:59:10 -0000

Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se> wrote:
    >> Is this connected to the fact that not even people developing standards
    >> use very same standards?

    > The problem is that we don't have enough dogs on our tasting panels: we
    > need to get more ops folks directly & actively involved in the IETF.

We've said that for years.
My take from what Patrik said is different:
   - we need to demand that people who participate in the IETF process use
     more of the specifications that we write.

What if ipv6@ietf.org and all of the 6*@ietf.org WG lists simply didn't
accept email over IPv4?

What if they rejected email that was text/plain with lines longer than 80
characters long? (or 72 or 77, or..)

As the owner of a technology business, I regularly get emails (often with
resume attached), offering me the service to redesign my web site.
Strangely, few of them actually *have* a web site.

I think that Patrik is saying the same thing of the IETF.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status