IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: bettering open source involvement

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Wed, 03 August 2016 19:22 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 E463512D7E0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 12:22:25 -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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 sICnH4fzRM_I for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 12:22:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x229.google.com (mail-lf0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAA4A12D129 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 12:22:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x229.google.com with SMTP id g62so168146393lfe.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Aug 2016 12:22:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=UKuudCsfG2hfdUe+pZ+PmPluZRf2jvjpnLG0hT14ZHU=; b=Hc7Vua47lsnYEHYmAqG9UHWH4Yuu3+oPtqo83KqBWbb994tWCmUgJw0ffjuLy4DVk1 R0eOZWpJPQ6zJ9ISEr6ZVDS8IhuB/vuw5p9UHmK6Z6s20YDeRuNC6VQQ17iGg3ihnr+q W0FiidN7rwtsFF9GXIc0MivhZ8PPmnq1l1Qfr5F48glHFKmtgm0bKIG2YqucVokjKZq4 rXH0UEHJbe/4WVcDZM/2AyP83iATAql/k5jT+2FAiy8ZmuGkxa2OOvTpbPp0QkzTszER TRYICMtCaeT5mUyrNUHJGjfYDR130hc51OWdjAy/eO6/d88LMEbDaqJ4W1GbRT406NrN hEBg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=UKuudCsfG2hfdUe+pZ+PmPluZRf2jvjpnLG0hT14ZHU=; b=I2Nz52yM6jIvHhO9+jQjB3NF5VxKq3gaH9AVHrRdD4hUrccLzc7/fKvG+sgWUWCKGu ZUNd078Qx5PpwJY/yeFY4f1sKY2LvFJ7tUuF4Zl72tJdZjhaJEVAnTJfUu89bQtHrHlB 1+r0w+dqAYKLN67BPDR8Vz+r0bKcugOC+0TNQjARTO4YSzc79sTwlXZekmBfuisaU5JL lD5iNvqHjrcaFoVc0lDpJDEW0fSOXfGUEvPep+C/Q2r4q4QrragpuU7nrrjPWvFluYzJ qQNC2zWeObeTBzYql5ZPUG6U2e3crOQXxNekrjZhVezyBMjsaMeQeKhDG+aAjtD4iBMe MfQg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouuZbwTrQeyUOFi7qTnvkjgcEQ9epl1/zWY6NghjjfQDufUCqcfOnivu/JuJ0HGpCS3XbjaWQVCEBl62Mg==
X-Received: by 10.46.5.80 with SMTP id 77mr19370909ljf.7.1470252141430; Wed, 03 Aug 2016 12:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.217.93 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 12:21:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4FA85A01-08C4-4A96-8DB2-EA618528A966@dukhovni.org>
References: <CAA93jw71iUPb4vuFK5sMqo_CQEE9HSkchc9988=98FKUsv_1sw@mail.gmail.com> <579A6B76.70303@alvarezp.org> <ADB1E7FD-115C-40DF-97BA-618CFBB1C0EF@cable.comcast.com> <52FD39F9-6362-4C1D-BCCE-40A4DFC65EA0@netapp.com> <701c724f-efe2-6591-0378-12db4609adab@gmail.com> <28848.1470152567@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <0a6e3a1a-1a4b-900e-0a07-e9843f32235f@gmail.com> <e1e4b48b-6ff5-22a3-168b-5d28137b3b1a@cs.tcd.ie> <m2k2fy1d66.wl%randy@psg.com> <4FA85A01-08C4-4A96-8DB2-EA618528A966@dukhovni.org>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2016 15:21:40 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1=6CXrwXVQJK9zZkKSo9Wjo59oatF7RApMpUoJkqapvDg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: bettering open source involvement
To: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114a72649edd9205392fc018"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/OmyG-TxiDYbVF-uogu7o4iWh1nw>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 03 Aug 2016 19:22:26 -0000

Rubber stamp objections generally come when there are two competing
implementations of different standards that do roughly the same thing, or
when someone brings a standard to the IETF that has issues, but they're
hoping to get the IETF to publish it as an RFC without having change
control.   Neither is a particularly sympathetic situation.

On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
wrote:

>
> > On Aug 3, 2016, at 4:15 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
> >
> > if you write a draft and have running example code, you are accused to
> > be just coming to the ietf for a rubber stamp (cf. sidr).
>
> The Postfix code for DANE in SMTP was developed in parallel with the early
> drafts of RFC767[12].  I don't recall any "rubber stamp" objections.
> Perhaps
> that was an exception, but at least that objection is not universal.
>
> Work on the Postfix code began in Mar/2013 and on the new drafts in
> May/2013.
> Stable code in Postfix 2.11 was released in Jan/2014, and the RFCs were
> finally
> published in Oct/2015.
>
> --
>         Viktor.
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email