Re: Closing down draft-secretaries-good-practices

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Tue, 09 December 2014 16:51 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
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 B11D31A039C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 08:51:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 Iqbv_lzXMDZr for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 08:51:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22b.google.com (mail-wi0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B6FB1A8986 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 08:51:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f171.google.com with SMTP id bs8so8511586wib.16 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 08:50:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=cR7tjw3EYsQjcSGo6nhgOBoRGfGrAxbr5gAEoccpZrM=; b=HAg6T9OqXGDVwaMlS3D+IXUT0S7HqE6qSsD0htmCuyU0sGUluBdzW8HO+sAAWKp2dr i358bzHEZR0e57Vfma5XNaa1IWvC4FGQjqzD0SY2AH7OEjMp9rJdDEezgL97cmo8g0dA 4BU3iHS+U/IcUxlcymZ5Avt1lVVToteN9FeQyroxaCxY+39SPCFr9/uGYMuQy3xD2KvM Z3K0iGnzZmEXRxNKBW38uFyjnrzBJ4eXQz1FvZ1EZMbdTySKycQelwUnpNYbxvKA8bSY yBgLSdtkuUrq7kdJXvcyIRm63JtIYKDo4CAjRisEsyhxP9nHwAj/NWp5tvlf52DsUzqP cktg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.75.199 with SMTP id e7mr34248464wiw.21.1418143858848; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 08:50:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.27.76.134 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 08:50:58 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <D530C417-5C67-4AF8-8FCF-2CCB1C405CD5@gmail.com>
References: <042901d013be$1e3750c0$5aa5f240$@olddog.co.uk> <D530C417-5C67-4AF8-8FCF-2CCB1C405CD5@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 08:50:58 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwYt7CERd+LfPhSnqx=hSrhX6xtCWDZ_4y6_NczeQrk__Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Closing down draft-secretaries-good-practices
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d04389577f27a280509cb58f6"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/LEq9nGEYhSsuvXPZd21b77B1xeM
Cc: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, draft-secretaries-good-practices.all@tools.ietf.org, IETF Disgust <ietf@ietf.org>
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 09 Dec 2014 16:51:04 -0000

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Adrian - I have to say I had an entirely different experience than you
> apparently did with the IETF discussion of this document.  Without
> exhaustively reviewing the various threads, my recollection is that the
> *content* of the document was mostly considered useful, while there was
> significant disagreement with the *process* of publishing that content as a
> BCP or (later) Informational RFC.  I specifically don't recall any attempt
> to ascribe anything but good intentions to the authors and I do recall many
> descriptions of the content of the document like "very useful material" (my
> own words).
>

I am (or was) also supportive of its publication as an Informational RFC.
Though I have never had or functioned as a WG secretary, I know some
co-chairs find it useful if not necessary to smooth operation of their
working groups.  That being the case, RFC2418 clearly says too little about
this as-is.

I thus expressed support for the work and, relative to the comments of
others, I thought my points were quite resolvable.

-MSK