Re: LLC Board Meeting Details - 14 May 2020

[Fernando Frediani <[e-mail]>]

On 08/05/2020 14:51, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> <clip>
>
> I would make two points here:
>
> First, I think you are wrong on the merits. I do not believe that 
> support for IPv6 (nor DNSSEC, nor TLS 1.3) should be a primary 
> criterion for selecting tools. It may make us sad that these 
> technologies are not being adopted at a faster rate but I don't think 
> that inconveniencing ourselves in order to make a statement is the 
> right answer.
Perhaps one of the reasons they are not being sufficiently adopted 
because of the lack examples of people and organizations using them and 
the main propose is that as much as possible organizations start to do 
that in the many ways possible, and IETF is an natural one. Really do 
you see such an inconvenience on that ?
>
> Second, for the LLC board to take this kind of unilateral action on a 
> matter which does not primarily impact the efficient operation of the 
> IETF but rather is about messaging, seems like precisely the kind of 
> overreach that people were worried the LLC would engage in. That kind 
> of policy decision should come from the IETF, and as Alissa says, the 
> position you are espousing does not seem to have gathered even rough 
> consensus.
When you say "unilateral" action I see as something natural. I don't 
think the community has to tell very detailed how the Board conduct 
every step of their business, that's why I am askinf for their 
consideration for this matter. They should have a fair amount of 
freedoom to decide smaller things like this which as I said are just 
administrative decisions. If there was a guiding document telling them 
how to do on this matter specifically fine, but there isn't and that 
doesn't stop them to make some adjustments, should they have the same 
view about the example it gives to other people and organizations and 
*specially to products that get more aware they can start to be rejected 
for not having support for the current Internet Protocol*

Rich - answering your question here it is not about that their view 
matters more of less of anyone else. It's just about being practical 
that *this* type of adjustment can be taken by themselves without need 
of any document with guidelines as it was already done for the tool 
currently used. If in the future community reach consensus on how this 
should be done, not just for the Board but for other scenarios, then all 
will adjust for that.

Regards
Fernando