Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net> Sun, 12 August 2012 15:50 UTC
Return-Path: <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
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 83E6421F84FD; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:50:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.556
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.556 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L7hlnM0WgyEs; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:50:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5715921F84FB; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:50:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (adsl-67-127-55-201.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.55.201]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q7CFoAKB011216 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:50:11 -0700
Message-ID: <5027D0B2.80306@bbiw.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:50:10 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Subject: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
References: <u2b8y2x43qn1esn7ege163mo.1344689258582@email.android.com> <50266F05.5050601@dcrocker.net> <1C6BB491-8B0B-4432-B633-6D8AA3B6477E@tzi.org> <50267826.70307@bbiw.net> <CAC4RtVARm1fXvHR4dv9Jh0HttW+ORhRx36kwF54RRjc4aOh1AQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVARm1fXvHR4dv9Jh0HttW+ORhRx36kwF54RRjc4aOh1AQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:50:11 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: IAB <iab@iab.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:50:18 -0000
On 8/12/2012 8:02 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > It's true that this was not put into an Internet Draft. Apart from > that, we seem to be doing the right thing: - The IAB Chair announced > the text and the intent to sign it on 1 Aug. Two weeks is normal process for spontaneous consensus calls? When did the community approve that change in process? > He asked for comments. No he didn't: "Please send strong objections..." This asserts a forceful bias against general comments and criticisms by establishing a very high threshhold for relevance. While no, no one is prevented from other kinds of postings, the bias is nonetheless established. > - A discussion (this) ensued, which has resulted in a great deal of > support for the signing, no objections to the document, and two > objections on process grounds. Note that he didn't ask for support, although explicit support statements are exactly what is required for IETF consensus calls, absent a history to justify the kind of "default yes" assumption made in the announcement. We don't have any such documented history for this effort. Would any of us guess that the community would support the document? Sure. But guessing isn't the point. That folks have chosen to ignore the stricture specified in the announcement and to post public support shows how deeply ingrained our model is. And, yeah, enough such postings overwhelm problems with the last call wording... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
- VS: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards … Jari Arkko
- Re: VS: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standa… Dave Crocker
- Re: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards … Carsten Bormann
- Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Para… Dave Crocker
- Re: VS: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standa… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Para… Dave Crocker
- Re: [MARKETING] Re: VS: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Mode… Stewart Bryant
- Re: VS: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standa… Glen Zorn
- Re: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards … Glen Zorn
- Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Para… SM
- Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Para… Glen Zorn
- Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Para… SM
- Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Para… Barry Leiba
- Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Para… Dave Crocker
- Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Para… Barry Leiba
- Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Para… Dave Crocker
- Metadiscussion [Last Call: Modern Global Standard… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Para… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Para… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Para… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Para… Lixia Zhang
- Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Para… SM
- Please, not more process (was: [IAB] Last Call: M… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards … Michael StJohns
- Re: Please, not more process (was: [IAB] Last Cal… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Para… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards … Richard Shockey
- One sentence SM