Re: Status of this memo
Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Tue, 27 April 2021 17:13 UTC
Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.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 AA09D3A1791 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 10:13:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 FVMKJp2DsMTh for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 10:13:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb1-f181.google.com (mail-yb1-f181.google.com [209.85.219.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56E803A178F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 10:13:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb1-f181.google.com with SMTP id p202so26601812ybg.8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 10:13:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=uycuXjv3AHbz7esVraZrKVaOOG4wtgugAJ6YfyDok5U=; b=fnMsL0RDFtOsOjLk9kkyGRBe0PwWU11gQ5GLELPlU2rU/aPgNEQgT+dun9QEy07ozV AwuBhkFgmyRhCEiX/Yb1Rem8tYygr9/JOnrMFB7xDZhHwGz9etip9AkDav2JRjVGDl4X LuvEV688pGBRi1R5VsrTl+LCTgHpb79kRq6NqL+dmRfVR1c4IHT8XqA5D4m3sQhKCEKF ghVLufD8BqbRDcI8pyJ3BGY4OZH8EwnIWuh5GMyTB3PViG/cwLKMSVxEJ0W/uLxTxb3j gLGww5GztuIp4E5DUt5POmQnUS81bVv4mcfJkL+wU6GdG8iT8ucIMsc5lUKbPJG36pLB ciQQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533u0cqrIC56apYDIYq9VEfEkp2ONpcHO2lIobw8QIIknOdHLHHn oVuQ2mqhhAEpOku/RQEtT6eclPWgbyI235DH8nTNANu01ps=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz6F8dGWgEXjXWpvbsWoi+V7YX8a1DQObs/LnNbOWXrm7FelwJUAicxECYbs0oJdRShiS7oZKsw1bENELycTPk=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:b7d4:: with SMTP id u20mr33360067ybj.522.1619543586272; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 10:13:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <376f83f0-89a3-cd0e-1792-c8434bd8a5d2@gmail.com> <9ACE59FA-30B6-475A-AF6B-4B874E4A2788@eggert.org> <1804294246.5904.1619512137931@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <D653D3B2-7666-409A-B856-2A4B1BA958CA@eggert.org> <3DBB64B1-40B8-4BC3-B66C-7F9B7F395874@akamai.com> <b5210c71-9500-3dba-05d2-4ae1c6ad16e9@network-heretics.com> <CAA=duU1VJs2vCE=uCF=fXO7FNedn9yPAaZWTgcaAiHTexA8uWA@mail.gmail.com> <2c48c55c-fd37-6ced-e025-707eb145a27b@nokia.com> <2D1F890C-1BC3-4E19-85C3-EEA522577275@tzi.org> <f1281b01-ed96-6350-eb9e-d0207b8d1d7c@network-heretics.com>
In-Reply-To: <f1281b01-ed96-6350-eb9e-d0207b8d1d7c@network-heretics.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 13:12:56 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+Lwh+w0iC2cOkSMyGgvcN-8D=x1+TgDSKLtsiqBOBHvJLYg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Status of this memo
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002878ba05c0f760ad"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/IoxRXv8aS88CGc65ANyoI4wgjdc>
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: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 17:13:12 -0000
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 12:36 PM Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> wrote: > On 4/27/21 12:17 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > > > I think Keith is recollecting some experience with WGs where the chairs > used the WG document process to run the show without much regard to the > WG’s opinions. > > Yes, I've seen that happen. But I've also seen something subtly > different happen, which is to ask the WG for "consensus" before there's > really been time for participants to have informed opinions, and then > (sometimes) treat that "consensus" as if it were set in stone for the > lifetime of the WG. > I have seen that happen many times without any draft being involved. "We must have a DPRIV solution in 12 months or it won't be any use, so your ideas can't be considered" - 2014. "It's too early to consider that" ... "And now it is far too late, the WG has gone in a different direction" One of the reasons I make damn sure to flag that type of move is precisely because I have seen that type of move being tried in the past. And the people who engage in underhand tactics are usually the same people engaging in whispering campaigns in the bar. I am still pretty angry about the 'DNS Directorate' and the people wearing 'black helicopter' hats to ridicule those of us pointing out that it's not a consensus process when a WG chair can refer the decisions of the WG to a pocket cabal that takes a year to make up its mind and then decides for the chair. And the folk who were eager participants in that were being manipulated from start to finish by the very organization they thought they were defeating by keeping DNSSEC pure. I am pretty sure they did the same on IPSEC as well. If you want to stop a crypto spec going through, all you need to do is to pick one feature that makes deployment impractical and persuade enough people that it is absolutely necessary. So IPSEC didn't work with NAT and was undeployable except as a worse VPN than SSH and DNSSEC deployment was stalled for almost a decade. Perhaps what we need is not to change the boilerplate in drafts but have a clearer description of what a consensus process is and introduce moves that cause data to be logged in the tracker. So that a WG chair can't say 'we will discuss that later', they have to schedule it as an action that has to be cleared. I would also like the IESG to have a standing rule that any WG predicated on the idea there is too little time to discuss the alternative approaches not be chartered in the first place. If there is too little time for consensus, this is not the place to have the discussion.
- Status of this memo Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Status of this memo Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Status of this memo Lars Eggert
- Re: Status of this memo Vittorio Bertola
- Re: Status of this memo Lars Eggert
- Re: Status of this memo Donald Eastlake
- Re: Status of this memo Carsten Bormann
- Re: Status of this memo Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Carsten Bormann
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Lars Eggert
- Re: Status of this memo Lloyd W
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Lars Eggert
- Re: Status of this memo Scott Brim
- Re: Status of this memo Vittorio Bertola
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Scott Bradner
- Re: Status of this memo Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
- Re: Status of this memo Salz, Rich
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Status of this memo Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Martin Vigoureux
- Re: Status of this memo Carsten Bormann
- Re: Status of this memo Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Bob Hinden
- Re: Status of this memo Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Status of this memo Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Status of this memo Donald Eastlake
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Donald Eastlake
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Donald Eastlake
- Re: Status of this memo Donald Eastlake
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- RE: Status of this memo Michael McBride
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Carsten Bormann
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Donald Eastlake
- Re: Status of this memo Donald Eastlake
- Re: Status of this memo Donald Eastlake
- Re: Status of this memo John C Klensin
- Re: Status of this memo Martin Vigoureux
- Re: Status of this memo Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Status of this memo John C Klensin
- Re: Status of this memo Michael StJohns
- Re: Status of this memo Martin Vigoureux
- Re: Status of this memo Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Status of this memo Randy Presuhn
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Status of this memo Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Status of this memo Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Status of this memo John C Klensin
- Re: Status of this memo ned+ietf
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Status of this memo [NOTE WELL] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo [WG consensus] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Status of this memo [name remixing] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Status of this memo Scott Bradner
- Re: Status of this memo Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Status of this memo [name remixing] Christian Huitema
- Re: Status of this memo Michael StJohns
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo ned+ietf
- Re: Status of this memo Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Status of this memo [NOTE WELL] Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Status of this memo [WG consensus] Theodore Ts'o
- Re: Status of this memo Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Status of this memo John C Klensin
- Re: Status of this memo Lloyd W
- Re: Status of this memo John C Klensin
- Re: Status of this memo Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: Status of this memo Simon Josefsson
- Re: Status of this memo Lloyd W
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Salz, Rich
- RE: Status of this memo Gorman, Pierce
- Re: Status of this memo Nick Hilliard
- Re: Status of this memo tom petch
- Re: Status of this memo Warren Kumari
- Re: Status of this memo Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Status of this memo S Moonesamy