Re: [Gendispatch] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45bis-06.txt> (IETF Discussion List Charter) to Best Current Practice

Bron Gondwana <> Wed, 20 October 2021 14:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED02E3A0637 for <>; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 07:34:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=W/BzeZHQ; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=Z9+KX3Hf
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3g4Euvn5sPbO for <>; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 07:34:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D84833A040A for <>; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 07:34:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal []) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6BDF3200F9F for <>; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 10:34:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap43 ([]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 20 Oct 2021 10:34:32 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to :references:date:from:to:subject:content-type; s=fm1; bh=eHTdOzr OIPaQVMWcorFrX226+C59oJxm7w2JWLZ3Jj8=; b=W/BzeZHQU9bTYub7CB9CDws maVquFqph+xmLb6YcQP49xLCovCRgIhfPbiXEw/0agOxaUcfc1Ga1zddDZJ8a789 J0ZLwCZufAMR4eIQF/1eSCryawt10K/uj8Z6hwj7iyWRQv0HFCwX9GxAoK4fAOrJ o5ZZefRvyyHi97ZlZW44mrMYHKTD6b7TX/WOYR3hqWP9uZjytpSrUNOKndHF1DcP 7FmeRpRg8plRzNNQRwsaa6xeEEMm4xtvdSURCxmhTTbH8D1D4s5J9QqPRSbmjg9t yDK9sHLw3TYHEVzy6/Cypf7+NG5Zgo0FFBrOfXR959/X2K78OFJLS47ri4XL00w= =
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=eHTdOz rOIPaQVMWcorFrX226+C59oJxm7w2JWLZ3Jj8=; b=Z9+KX3HfhroW+chYqL9C84 4cVEES5Qoh3I9Fd5nQdb+SgDYY74n+KQpb5WwFA3VHvOemBTE2YgRYzgVPlYw0nM JaTbog9KsgZRf7Hckc5Yb7X+shSVeGMApdRAErC07xOOkjnVto0wdrXO51rFuWdg b+GPCRNpsUX/RpA1DMTrLaJTAkcnpKDW/gCEId6ulkyXDmZuzP7qzAO2d35Qq/Oz EjzaDff5Ba5td9ECWD84Jb2E9XqqdLxB0AlB2xtUrtqiJfFjPFuXCrBqO/0n0wwV xChsaVz5CXevKt0bu1IqTYzkafEvTNaAGk1vIrpVCcjG+4F3mv6slaBvrTQcpagw ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:-ChwYXuKsIyrVAru8TyGT9375uKcDuy3Eat00uRhQmDkNf69PezgSA> <xme:-ChwYYeU7x4U-jrPMSeZ67OKOhryFusB-kS49FpRKV6ZBONk8m4S72ny-TpiPq_2T 2XqR3glx0g>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrvddvgedgjeegucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsegrtd erreerredtnecuhfhrohhmpedfuehrohhnucfiohhnugifrghnrgdfuceosghrohhnghes fhgrshhtmhgrihhlthgvrghmrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedvudeuieehgf dvheeuueejjeeuudfgiefgveetfeelteeffffgtdejjefgueduvdenucevlhhushhtvghr ufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegsrhhonhhgsehfrghsthhmrg hilhhtvggrmhdrtghomh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:-ChwYazfR2EUfT6tWeTkRGtLBe5FflW-fwezkh5AYcJmLUAHD2LGFg> <xmx:-ChwYWMwAp7dY1bHKx7t0g9vaXyseA5M3K-6uOKrJe7JdHRoca1_kg> <xmx:-ChwYX9Q7-_mUwFyd_TMC0eI2__fa5TBUBfjo6j20HaTs6oRfD3rIw> <xmx:-ChwYaKp270C5c-n3avU_hfQwoaZu8eZXboqloMhbuSX38ta35I7EQ>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 371A9AC0362; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 10:34:32 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.5.0-alpha0-1369-gd055fb5e7c-fm-20211018.002-gd055fb5e
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 01:34:11 +1100
From: Bron Gondwana <>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45bis-06.txt> (IETF Discussion List Charter) to Best Current Practice
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="351e279e5ae1415bad36fb0dd158e696"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 14:34:53 -0000

On Thu, Oct 21, 2021, at 00:13, Barry Leiba wrote:
> The only way we have, at this point, to make community appointments is
> through the NomCom, and I think it would be a bad approach to add SAA
> positions to the NomCom's slate.

I definitely agree with this.  While there are some advantages to having the NomCom appoint everything, the SAA role isn't one of the things that needs it - likewise we don't have the NomCom appoint all working group chairs, instead we have the ADs appoint them as part of their responsibilities.

I do understand Lloyd's issue as well - he had a particularly messy run-in with the SAA in a circumstance where the SAA was being used to shut down a very uncomfortable discussion about a publication which was seen to be claiming a consensus which had not been established.

If the SAA was the final arbiter of what's acceptable in the IETF, then I'd agree that we need a more rigorous way to appoint them - but, they aren't.  The escalation point for a problem with the SAA is the IETF chair, and if you ALSO have a problem with the chair, then there's a dispute resolution or recall processes.  So the SAA isn't the final arbiter, so I'm quite happy for the SAAs to continue to be appointed by the chair.



  Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd