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

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net> Sat, 11 August 2012 15:20 UTC

Return-Path: <dcrocker@bbiw.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 B2E3B21F857D; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 08:20:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.554
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.554 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.045, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 WBWlcK40gj21; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 08:20:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 202B221F8568; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 08:20:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (adsl-67-127-55-201.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.55.201]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q7BFKIxC013933 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 11 Aug 2012 08:20:19 -0700
Message-ID: <50267826.70307@bbiw.net>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 08:20:06 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
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: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Subject: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
References: <u2b8y2x43qn1esn7ege163mo.1344689258582@email.android.com> <50266F05.5050601@dcrocker.net> <1C6BB491-8B0B-4432-B633-6D8AA3B6477E@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <1C6BB491-8B0B-4432-B633-6D8AA3B6477E@tzi.org>
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 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Sat, 11 Aug 2012 08:20:20 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: IAB <iab@iab.org>, 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: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 15:20:20 -0000

On 8/11/2012 8:13 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On Aug 11, 2012, at 16:41, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:
>> consensus-oriented process
>
> Sometimes, though, you have to act.
>
> While a consensus-oriented process*) document could certainly be used
> to improve (or deteriorate) the document by a couple more epsilons, I
> agree with Randy Bush: Signing it now is a no-brainer.


I wasn't commenting on document editing.  (It actually needs a serious 
editing pass, but I understand that the current situation mitigates 
against pursuing that.)

My point was that we have a process for assessing IETF support and it's 
not being used.  Something quite different is being used.

I'm not arguing against the document, but merely noting that an 
implication of IETF community support is going to be present, but in the 
absence of our having followed the process that makes that (formally) 
correct.

Bureaucracy sucks.  It's a hassle. It's always more appealing to just do 
whatever we feel like that feels reasonable because we have good intent.

d/
-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net