IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW comment period

Michael <mstjohns@comcast.net> Sat, 31 August 2019 23:46 UTC

Return-Path: <mstjohns@comcast.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 1306F12013A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Aug 2019 16:46:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=comcast.net
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 NujlKNfGAD-P for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Aug 2019 16:46:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-09v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-09v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E01F12001B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Aug 2019 16:46:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-ch2-01v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.97]) by resqmta-ch2-09v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTP id 4D42ijIYo3mMa4D4niYQhM; Sat, 31 Aug 2019 23:46:37 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=20190202a; t=1567295197; bh=m5nqgL0kEmCVWMaAGpkiPAZNOrSESC1FvO3ymyX+j+I=; h=Received:Received:Date:From:To:Message-ID:Subject:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=B2AlQaVPlZAz5X8yi5S0zbYwgW35pAGmVel9no7fVVWdA0mQphtUENf1mtzWb+SBH Mz48qxtv+AlVuySpavuZfidH1F9tlm78l4FRNMozsZIWKeaXeTg0d126EVwmtIQbNY DaE+pOrVJj8fzxivKJKqzlpP8Uvac8ntUy7309mg//8KpmVBXFMJyhSRGX6Xtw94xh 9BusZE0WVRmLIMDv9Rfj+flIjWMx+4Vnc6UEtprbqxw5INaZWzNwvUmuFb8/oIB+sm HfPnQHduhmTXMZaBmMAxqRqw0mL/j5btmjLe6cH5BxvceRHgOKAmeszMF6ZtaN0rHI j0ARy/6eFrRqg==
Received: from Mikes-IPhone ([IPv6:2607:fb90:782:dd7:9071:7488:46d3:bf07]) by resomta-ch2-01v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTPA id 4D4TibUCiKYFn4D4Yi7lRI; Sat, 31 Aug 2019 23:46:33 +0000
X-Xfinity-VMeta: sc=-100;st=legit
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2019 19:46:17 -0400
From: Michael <mstjohns@comcast.net>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <f5d6d61c-60a7-40d9-b4e7-9ebf04a9ac43@Mikes-IPhone>
Subject: Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW comment period
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="5d6b06c9_6b8b4567_283b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/OncVFq65q1h4eZ9OSmfp2_k9USk>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sat, 31 Aug 2019 23:46:40 -0000

What Keith said.

Sent from XFINITY Connect Mobile App

------ Original Message ------

From: Keith Moore
To: Adam Roach
Cc: Bob Hinden, IETF
Sent: August 31, 2019 at 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW comment period

> On Aug 31, 2019, at 3:55 PM, Adam Roach wrote: > > Is it your position that there is no supervision function intended to keep the discussion within the mailing list’s charter, aside from that required to tamp down abusive behavior? I don’t think this is an appropriate role for the SAA to assume. Being off-topic is not anywhere nearly the same as abuse and should not be treated in the same way. The very nature of the SAA role requires that it be used sparingly. And I doubt that prior restraint by the SAA, of any kind of contribution to the IETF list, is ever appropriate. Keith

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email