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

Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com> Sun, 12 August 2012 06:13 UTC

Return-Path: <glenzorn@gmail.com>
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 5958021F84F1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 23:13:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.056
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.056 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.004, BAYES_00=-2.599, EXTRA_MPART_TYPE=1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 b8H24ALVJP6V for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 23:13:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B149021F8568 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 23:13:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pbbrr4 with SMTP id rr4so5255774pbb.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 23:13:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:organization :date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=4trHv04K3W/7hV0DTXYfPUffyLLo5ALX+uMnLIj18ss=; b=wy8ysX/QZXJ+unBIYK3dEvEMdAVOnm2kiVrNPcgCQe3kvlE6akH8S91Jr7/piwWbfM E04qi/zW/urHMXlsm3+fUlhvkp+y/7cNIdJxa08c7k5+pIKqbfnwc254vjy0LIfpiSuJ 5DIasT+pxgNm/hfkM9hR4MMr/OdqsJ7Z76N/8llQUFW3SeK3daEuCcO2LraNxG0nUwEi zM40IZy/dnUFGKIflqeNvWk0/P+V2xvcIVjIpz4V7fhhRojX4t+UgmBYFUy2KFZ4rBiP gOibpSfd/wsBJtLPKWWOQpQNwRqegAy+BckMsT3DsDBNLlep7wt3z+LZ8kihujnjmOYh oOIg==
Received: by 10.66.74.100 with SMTP id s4mr9697185pav.27.1344752008470; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 23:13:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.102] (ppp-124-122-161-240.revip2.asianet.co.th. [124.122.161.240]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hr9sm2760347pbc.36.2012.08.11.23.13.24 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 11 Aug 2012 23:13:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
From: Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com>
To: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120811184647.09367e30@resistor.net>
References: <u2b8y2x43qn1esn7ege163mo.1344689258582@email.android.com> <50266F05.5050601@dcrocker.net> <1C6BB491-8B0B-4432-B633-6D8AA3B6477E@tzi.org> <50267826.70307@bbiw.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20120811184647.09367e30@resistor.net>
Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; boundary="=-W54c2woQteMqqGUxxWR7"
Organization: Network Zen
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 13:13:22 +0700
Message-ID: <1344752002.8891.44.camel@gwz-laptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.3 (2.32.3-1.fc14)
Cc: IAB <iab@iab.org>, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, 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 06:13:29 -0000

On Sat, 2012-08-11 at 20:49 -0700, SM wrote:

...


> 
> At 19:06 11-08-2012, Glen Zorn wrote:
> >any one other than themselves.  If support by IETF members at-large 
> >is to be signified, then an online petition of some sort would be a 
> >much better idea & much less deceptive.
> 
> RFCs, for example RFC 1984, have been used for such statements.


Sorry, I don't get your point.  The referenced RFC says

   The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering
   Steering Group (IESG), the bodies which oversee architecture and
   standards for the Internet, are concerned by the need for increased
   protection of international commercial transactions on the Internet,
   and by the need to offer all Internet users an adequate degree of
   privacy.

Presumably, the IAB & IESG came to this concern through consensus and
the document expresses the consensus (along with the rather typical
sense of exaggerated self-importance ;-))
of those bodies.  It pointedly does not claim to represent the opinion
of the entire IETF, but neither does the document under discussion
(unless the royal usage of "we" is intended) and that's how it should
be.  


> 
> Regards,
> -sm 
>