IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Thu, 25 April 2019 09:03 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 596CC12006F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 02:03:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham 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 4zTbdZBKoAxS for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 02:03:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta5.iomartmail.com (mta5.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.155]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F44212006D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 02:03:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (vs3.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.124]) by mta5.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x3P93gWI006784; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 10:03:42 +0100
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B0252205C; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 10:03:42 +0100 (BST)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.248]) by vs3.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FAD322056; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 10:03:42 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([87.112.228.68]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x3P93fMh007168 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 25 Apr 2019 10:03:41 +0100
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Nico Williams' <nico@cryptonector.com>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
References: <72f00d0b-7ec6-ba6a-b17b-97879d457ae3@comcast.net> <CAKKJt-fOMMdM-mkbJaYpsH6XPCpatUkwZY-d_A+MaNa3nhaNDg@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBNdaWU4wwOK_MnWC5hOr7Lu3osmC_6_KKxB5fHuHVHyTw@mail.gmail.com> <23d54797-5c94-aa00-ec55-3f2c4fdfcfae@comcast.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20190424095017.13cdadc8@elandnews.com> <51068F13-E90F-42A2-8AE2-627D5E18B145@akamai.com> <20190424201939.GM3137@localhost> <6.2.5.6.2.20190424134823.0c9faf68@elandnews.com> <20190424211123.GO3137@localhost> <6.2.5.6.2.20190424144539.0cabcde0@elandnews.com> <20190424234334.GQ3137@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <20190424234334.GQ3137@localhost>
Subject: RE: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2019 10:03:41 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <07c201d4fb45$c78e8b70$56aba250$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Content-Language: en-gb
Thread-Index: AQPS1uP87rlqdZKX6T7TnuD6HUj+/wITxDtSAk+nAuQBvDPLRQMb9m0EAT0gRVMBXkrRNQILcLDUAZwEX10CX4IDRwI/VW/voa/v7MA=
X-Originating-IP: 87.112.228.68
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-24572.005
X-TM-AS-Result: No--13.004-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--13.004-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-24572.005
X-TMASE-Result: 10--13.004100-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: gzVbiXtWD9vxIbpQ8BhdbEDR8mskUTDa0Wobj8GkNVq3LDb3luvXBNU4 IiUSGII7zEw+P5jDZRm2fb0wl0mok5MQbambziPqqLiIn4tHBVzdsJI7r+eTzv2TbFr0CGODA7s EL+X/NljCFE73Tfq2v1sB4ewRtbqBYiS5IMZgPcOzI1v7J4hECqHXXqNw58ALax+0dEYaKwx/9t MKhlGm0hsb25VnKbHqvBswyRmD1e/yha4uErRN/Sa1MaKuob8Pt3aeg7g/usCe9toQ6h6LE4/PV DShyTFtD3ijvjpw34cEP1EYl2hD5fGx+QE0i9CXJlIRBurDUWOS+p5NggZ4IiDbJV2PcsBEZ+P5 zFidQZvjUeNOvodx2oKdPDDd5zggWmc6df3hSszw6xaHd2KCCofGLZ++QpQz1TKQ8rVEUCj3V0u 7p177xA8bXlKTp+ec7hhFdIuNXD+dxFTjrdR5M1hAH1+JdiAITSwzXz9D+2V3qTPyPrXqnKPFjJ EFr+olfeZdJ1Xsorj72mXKge0hlwtuKBGekqUpI/NGWt0UYPC1R8/8fw2VE+bJdQ62stKW3ZxlJ AJm4krHwYwFeIN6LdF/40U9sj+I
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/M3be3V7AqJf6USxfWp9Wy1gSnSw>
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: Thu, 25 Apr 2019 09:03:50 -0000

Nico, you over-stretch the "normality" of the process, IMHO.

If I can point to a few random RFCs that made changes to process without a
BoF or WG...
- RFC 7942 (which replaced RFC 6982)
- RFC 7776 (lots of discussion)
- RFC 8126
- RFC 8318 (this one is very relevant to our discussion)
- RFC 7475

These RFCs received varying amounts of discussion on mailing lists. Mainly
on this list.

It is only a quick sample from recent times, but I hope it demonstrates the
point that process changes are often (more often than not, I would say)
brought to publication without a BoF, WG, or WG last call.

We can debate whether *this* change needs a BoF etc., but we cannot use
precedent to claim that it would be strange to not have a BoF or that
AD-sponsorship would be grounds for recall or appeal.

Thanks,
Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf <ietf-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Nico Williams
Sent: 25 April 2019 00:44
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev

On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 03:28:19PM -0700, S Moonesamy wrote:
> At 02:11 PM 24-04-2019, Nico Williams wrote:
> > What's the problem with holding a BoF?
> 
> It doesn't make sense to ask a person who lacks extensive travel resources
> to fly to Canada to hold a BoF about a short draft.

You could participate remotely.

Seriously, please stop suggesting that your I-D not getting sponsored is
a moral or ethical failure on the part of the ADs.  You've been given a
way forward that fits our publication process.

We have a process for publication of Standards-Track and BCP RFCs.  That
process involves an optional BoF, a WG Last Call, definitely IETF Last
Call, and IESG review.  It would be strange to skip the BoF and the WG
LC steps, and it would be stranger still to have an IETF LC on a draft
that has had this much discussion and no other forum for discussing it.

An AD sponsoring this I-D as it is might well be grounds for a recall
petition!  :^/

Nico
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email