Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

Dave Crocker <> Sun, 12 August 2012 15:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83E6421F84FD; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:50:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.556
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L7hlnM0WgyEs; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:50:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5715921F84FB; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:50:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (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: <>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:50:10 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <>
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 <>
Subject: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
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 ( []); Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:50:11 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: IAB <>, IETF <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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...


  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking