IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: LLC Board Meeting Details - 14 May 2020

Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com> Mon, 11 May 2020 08:56 UTC

Return-Path: <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.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 AA5F73A0936 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2020 01:56:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, 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=open-xchange.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 IZp66vb0DF01 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2020 01:56:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx3.open-xchange.com (alcatraz.open-xchange.com [87.191.39.187]) (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 B67593A0932 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 May 2020 01:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from open-xchange.com (imap.open-xchange.com [10.20.30.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx3.open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 879816A2FD; Mon, 11 May 2020 10:56:01 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=open-xchange.com; s=201705; t=1589187361; bh=PShIaV13EIcduOHgKGzOFn0xDlsCqGVr12iPaJ7GlZA=; h=Date:From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From; b=vM7GcCh9vtDxY3onAhJFfA/xp01eGkoCeo4uNdE8WkALV9Y6MBAbDflS8CpnDuaW0 iOz3mIrHZtsifeLUrvsu7eTolbDlvU37vtR7fF9J3BNNCvEd/bjWGpZD7BnujK+n1n xnioAxgqL4ERxe/WJjUhPStYtqDc3EqBrNN3Tr9j9LBd0SurcrjDUxCBkfhbALZWRH zFMeQGAakJSlVsu6cgAlnOuZYSd11SqUWpWNaGUPcXIHwvUPzCsgDiCuDAVQv3EMGw eYleLv9SSSLo4WO5/LEJjLR27Cb+VIjXSsbs+Qpum4MKbpC2Xt4ANozphHfUtzuJOI tXmvhQ9xcQ+2g==
Received: from appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com (appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com [10.20.28.82]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 798D33C0432; Mon, 11 May 2020 10:56:01 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 10:56:01 +0200
From: Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Message-ID: <1813370600.24424.1589187361402@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200508193716.A48EC18ECDA8@ary.qy>
References: <CABcZeBO_6vwxn3XTJfJvHGifx-boyKQ2KxVAS2-x-i5NFKpd9w@mail.gmail.com> <20200508193716.A48EC18ECDA8@ary.qy>
Subject: Re: LLC Board Meeting Details - 14 May 2020
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.3-Rev8
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
Autocrypt: addr=vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQENBFhFR+UBCACfoywFKBRfzasiiR9/6dwY36eLePXcdScumDMR8qoXvRS55QYDjp5bs+yMq41qWV9 xp/cqryY9jnvHbeF3TsE5yEazpD1dleRbkpElUBpPwXqkrSP8uXO9KkS9KoX6gdml6M4L+F82WpqYC1 uTzOE6HPmhmQ4cGSgoia2jolxAhRpzoYN99/BwpvoZeTSLP5K6yPlMPYkMev/uZlAkMMhelli9IN6yA yxcC0AeHSnOAcNKUr13yXyMlTyi1cdMJ4sk88zIbefxwg3PAtYjkz3wgvP96cNVwAgSt4+j/ZuVaENP pgVuM512m051j9SlspWDHtzrci5pBKKFsibnTelrABEBAAG0NUJlcnRvbGEsIFZpdHRvcmlvIDx2aXR 0b3Jpby5iZXJ0b2xhQG9wZW4teGNoYW5nZS5jb20+iQFABBMBAgAqBAsJCAcGFQoJCAsCBRYCAwEAAp 4BAhsDBYkSzAMABQMAAAAABYJYRUflAAoJEIU2cHmzj8qNaG0H/ROY+suCP86hoN+9RIV66Ej8b3sb8 UgwFJOJMupZfeb9yTIJwE4VQT5lTt146CcJJ5jvxD6FZn1Htw9y4/45pPAF7xLE066jg3OqRvzeWRZ3 IDUfJJIiM5YGk1xWxDqppSwhnKcMOuI72iioWxX0nGQrWxpnWJsjt08IEEwuYucDkul1PHsrLJbTd58 fiMKLVwag+IE1SPHOwkPF6arZQZIfB5ThtOZV+36Jn8Hok9XfeXWBVyPkiWCQYVX39QsIbr0JNR9kQy 4g2ZFexOcTe8Jo12jPRL7V8OqStdDes3cje9lWFLnX05nrfLuE0l0JKWEg8akN+McFXc+oV68h7nu5A Q0EWEVH5QEIAIDKanNBe1uRfk8AjLirflZO291VNkOAeUu+dIhecGnZeQW6htlDinlYOnXhtsY1mK9W PUu+xshDq7lXn2G0LxldYwyJYZaJtDgIKqVqwxfA34Lj27oqPuXwcvGhdCgt0SW/YcalRdAi0/AzUCu 5GSaj2kaGUSnBYYUP4szGJXjaK2psP5toQSCtx2pfSXQ6MaqPK9Zzy+D5xc6VWQRp/iRImodAcPf8fg JJvRyJ8Jla3lKWyvBBzJDg6MOf6Fts78bJSt23X0uPp93g7GgbYkuRMnFI4RGoTVkxjD/HBEJ0CNg22 hoHJondhmKnZVrHEluFuSnW0wBEIYomcPSPB+cAEQEAAYkBMQQYAQIAGwUCWEVH5QIbDAQLCQgHBhUK CQgLAgUJEswDAAAKCRCFNnB5s4/KjdO8B/wNpvWtOpLdotR/Xh4fu08Fd63nnNfbIGIETWsVi0Sbr8i E5duuGaaWIcMmUvgKe/BM0Fpj9X01Zjm90uoPrlVVuQWrf+vFlbalUYVZr51gl5UyUFHk+iAZCAA0WB rsmACKvuV1P7GuiX3UV9b59T9taYJxN3dNFuftrEuvsqHimFtlekUjUwoCekTJdncFusBhwz2OrKhHr WWrEsXkfh0+pURWYAlKlTxvXuI7gAfHEQM+6OnrWvXYtlhd0M1sBPnCjbyG63Qws7Rek9bEWKtH6dA6 dmT2FQT+g1S9Mdf0WkPTQNX0x24dm8IoHuD3KYwX7Svx43Xa17aZnXqUjtj1
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/UarI-IgT-QPK5-lYOInsHGmeFWc>
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: Mon, 11 May 2020 08:56:07 -0000

> Il 08/05/2020 21:37 John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> ha scritto:
>  
> In article <CABcZeBO_6vwxn3XTJfJvHGifx-boyKQ2KxVAS2-x-i5NFKpd9w@mail.gmail.com> you write:
> >First, I think you are wrong on the merits. I do not believe that support
> >for IPv6 (nor DNSSEC, nor TLS 1.3) should be a primary criterion for
> >selecting tools. It may make us sad that these technologies are not being
> >adopted at a faster rate but I don't think that inconveniencing ourselves
> >in order to make a statement is the right answer.
> 
> I happen to agree with this sentiment but I really wish we could give
> this endless argument a rest.  
> 
> It's come up over and over for at least a decade, we have never come close
> to resolving it, and we're not going to do it right now.

Putting together the last few messages in this thread, a logical conclusion would be that to solve this argument permanently you need an RFC that says that the IETF is not going to do this.

-- 
 
Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com 
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email