IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IETF Chair

Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com> Wed, 11 November 2020 17:37 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@dropnumber.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 C568C3A24AE; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 09:37:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 kIciDXqzpDIB; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 09:37:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.196]) (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 385653A33FB; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 09:26:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oxuslxaltgw03.schlund.de ([10.72.76.59]) by mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus002 [74.208.5.2]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MhSU8-1kzUwa3S42-00MgNh; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 18:26:42 +0100
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 12:26:42 -0500
From: Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <868950099.14147.1605115602441@email.ionos.com>
In-Reply-To: <1799122003.173083.1602622919370@email.ionos.com>
References: <2B51679C-2BED-4F7B-B146-FF1524B00AA5@akamai.com> <C775E80B-9A31-492E-BA6A-96F9FE831316@akamai.com> <128277543.164613.1602611739735@email.ionos.com> <FDB2D034-AC8C-46E6-9306-321D820EE297@tzi.org> <1799122003.173083.1602622919370@email.ionos.com>
Subject: Re: IETF Chair
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.3-Rev26
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:j7LaS6He8xA0XUoKMyDV+WeX1eYrYENO290n6TZTik95lzefLC4 ucb0CuEWfmnbu1N/2R6kl4O60GpBpIdsLbnNMIioechZJ0/roy7aMXSrEMHbG8xI4BPEynT a3QQICg3oYjwg86hr4CbzjQAcyzcRnI5hUm87ebw4axhT39QEjub4kCFkd4QmB4HBlXYoX8 cIxhUYpYyq2C+NphyrGTA==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:zs0BI1K8/y8=:1g+z1ftN9Fmy9Kl/inN2AW 2DTEGBacQVAPyRpezN2lvPxamQmYjIwYPMg+BS+A5CHMoyvGmW3cQEe82L9JMXvdYFYRiciai UKqOuqQxQMI3r8aXJY67zNtTZWNTO2k6BE+OnbJ7IO8T4UO5lJ+w1ZgeAxcf6w8Rae6cXReEu nEbFAuNtTHDML894YbyZH3sdPzS2829mq3yT0U/uNtQ9LvD1DUuCyfEiDM31a3ekMIvRUwuSn 0rC3+bIKYLNEf2LIFYiHx7zHBdaAHpECZPvYvsTKLODK5FXq5UeaU77X1mWMXzllu510nELBf Wie44h3WxrRQzJkavjvG0K8uBCJjP374+/Va8ouBtFi0du7NgsJQ1uAkXH1s/W9gW+fURntKu H9uYCDpCFjr15dQBUWjMFDPnPV4ygqa9399UMn6ANcR0zIDV6fjmkl5HallcZPhF35hL2JlK+ UxW3Wh/XUA==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/TobjulXPmcgAdXN7XWOApa6tVfw>
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: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 17:37:46 -0000

> On 10/13/2020 5:01 PM Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Carsten, 
> 
> >An interesting objective for the IETF chair would be to figure out how to do
> >this, while also finding ways to waste less time and energy on contributors
> >that receive plenty, unanimous advice why their proposal doesn’t work/help
> >and then continue to bring the same thing up again and again. We probably
> >need a few more circuit breakers.
> 
> What's needed is an automated nits checker for protocol parameters like is used with draft submission. That would negate the need for all kinds of wasted time for the IESG, designated experts and arguments over RFC intent. Plus new implementors wouldn't have to keep hearing the same explination on why it won't work over and over again :-) Either it goes through or it doesn't.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email