Re: Registration details for IETF 108

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 02 June 2020 22:12 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@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 2EA263A1072 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 15:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 8bT9zyTzmaal for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 15:12:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x32a.google.com (mail-ot1-x32a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32a]) (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 F06BE3A1071 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 15:12:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32a.google.com with SMTP id o13so235446otl.5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 15:12:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ZbH6hGuDDEoCgWwyCF3e8gEQsa5CQHvWKU9Zf0UIawk=; b=rBipjIIy+HSlZbtis0TrbakFV1xAGOTcQON7icRFfSzg5hZlmGGMDl5KH9xVVdVwsY Xr65yPHIFeCL4bbHQFvtZuGx8bS0chNIdt0ZfVWx9t7t1KmBHFPwc1/0dHoRxwkluoAc +19QaYPvbanjYgRFV03S0/hDYUPbIU4kvPeIS3ioo3T7B36//S9VM+AHjmIcfg6ua2xD 4Jp8G3gOulZ+U5VGCJtgoF2xNNYWWIeOc1c9nf31Wy89RCCk57TMFuPw0G7/dWrlUuDb EXsNYVRifsER13rHlAfOXYp1/1l9i+8uVAv4iRXyKkRlPb0dK4+4xJfU0nzlt+dInah9 391w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ZbH6hGuDDEoCgWwyCF3e8gEQsa5CQHvWKU9Zf0UIawk=; b=CIkll+UO1c2rFVV8knkn6Rj6o4bJo0MXcfeMoVXk27vFX0NG2Bqnlc0pwKwrJk7rLh b1mQAEHW7Srso8Od4vEjf3EDCEb1LmWlP37RAELkPenJ6zvkXxOkIc2pLuv6qmJHUprP Kj0CS0rqHUwReAuRXFUzezW0kMkYf9tavoIu8+qyWC1vEHy6ffphHobJcBX/h8CJs7vK L3tQmP/FkdRUD3pwrDbVg0H4ZBoh7ukcKHrrCvcLpZL2T9DYKqJcTJCuoGdUYCtmZmRe ZIJFyaNv9YxlZymr7ogA96jLl8cZwZlQ0cSKRIHAIxEXiV+VnD8buzN4K0DT8X3gPV0J R3YA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531tjGNjo43ejgDp350zx8dVVr1cQFqdknQKLtK1JiKB3K5SwKPo /DTjM/yYpOSsjV5QSTkDhbgWIiK9yY8mNRJrEpQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyp+NURLP5szzCNe+GHmUnybmEfmJ75XIy1kvjoXzfABr1DS5Lo0oc6bMLM4uvAhxhe9r2hA6qUL6iZQuG+t2c=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:aaa:: with SMTP id 39mr942600otq.269.1591135935189; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 15:12:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <159062833754.6110.5826748635235943562@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20200531121457.0b249858@elandnews.com> <CABcZeBOzVHaSZa0A3eDz12RwNuCiHtiJL8wqvAhhLPN6YEQOkQ@mail.gmail.com> <3f9a0e50-c01b-01c6-ad52-95f370baeb8d@joelhalpern.com> <B71999A2-3EC6-4649-864F-674BA494B511@gmail.com> <616FD1DE-C25F-44CE-9FA3-CC00943FC98B@cable.comcast.com> <A9DBD8B0-01B3-4C68-91B3-BD1E99E226BA@gmail.com> <70d1493c-4c00-f32e-8996-72d0a8369571@comcast.net> <D3BA93CD3D2D101946F35024@PSB> <9F71F116-D7B2-4ECE-9000-957A0C497404@ietf.org> <01d701d638ca$c096b5e0$41c421a0$@gmail.com> <CABcZeBOLAw_9s-gobFYB=5THu_Q70UmDLn_ZhVXhNRHN_nu_0w@mail.gmail.com> <607b7682-0a75-62b6-fd0e-5e2e1171a68b@cs.tcd.ie> <CA+9kkMBEqhn115ToB0SwOGavmXze4DdJdL941J4LeVMRrPngpQ@mail.gmail.com> <e1b804ae-4c2e-fdf3-8804-47820d35facf@cs.tcd.ie> <CA+9kkMC8ZWHaCBg=WzwtriVf-3bq=egupVgAH-J7dSqspwLoFw@mail.gmail.com> <a19c3066-bfa7-ded2-d98f-b5e367645451@cs.tcd.ie> <CA+9kkMDrsRoCPFyzU7HJWoFqgg3jQ4rszQvNRMzUAAhVwn=k0w@mail.gmail.com> <583a2e86-260a-4156-2a72-dd21e789cf97@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <583a2e86-260a-4156-2a72-dd21e789cf97@cs.tcd.ie>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 15:11:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMD+7CLeTQ2npmWeeu58A94a5DBAzfm+SVUCgn8fwxh0pQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Registration details for IETF 108
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Mehmet Ersue <mersue@gmail.com>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000034d7b605a721342a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/U75Z8DFh0DcMG3OazDNwuFyS6K0>
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: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 22:12:17 -0000

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 2:56 PM Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
wrote:

>
>
> On 02/06/2020 22:41, Ted Hardie wrote:
> > And you are convincing me that attempting to settle it on the IETF list
> > will require somebody to judge consensus, since there look to be a
> minimum
> > of two people with the time and keyboards available to disagree.  We
> > apparently, however, disagree on who that should be.
>
> Perhaps not! If you do agree that consensus calling is
> required that seems to imply the LLC is not the one to
> do that. We have a bunch of 14 victims already setup
> to do just that:-)
>
>
I think the LLC can call consensus on a matter within their remit (just as
the IAOC evaluated the feedback on the registration date change policy that
I referenced many messages ago).  So, I think they are the victims set up
to do that in this case.

Since you referenced the magic number 14, I conclude we still disagree.

I think we do agree that there should be public discussion.  I think we do
agree that the LLC and IESG should talk to each other about the
implications of different strategies to both the ongoing work of the IETF
and its financial future.  I think we do agree that any conclusion would be
revisited in the light of evidence of how it ends up working.

But our disagreement on on who the stuckee is remains.

regards,

Ted


> Cheers,
> S.
>
>