Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch)
Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Fri, 25 October 2019 21:50 UTC
Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 A4C4212004A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 14:50:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 61dx8VsaJKyc for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 14:50:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (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 C0E2F120020 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 14:50:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id x9PLoVOA011486 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 25 Oct 2019 17:50:35 -0400
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 14:50:31 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Cc: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, ietf@ietf.org, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Subject: Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch)
Message-ID: <20191025215031.GL69013@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20191025000022.0d4d5570@elandsys.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20191025000022.0d4d5570@elandsys.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/UbNS4Z0qJIKOvukkNTSeafRGQN4>
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: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 21:50:55 -0000
Hi SM, You give plain-text quotations from another message (or messages?), but with no Reply-To header or full quoted passages inline, it's hard to provide an answer in the proper context, but I will try. My interpretation (at least to the extent I recall) of John's classification of two types of process proposals is that it was mostly descriptive, of an "either X or not X" sense, and thus uncontroversial. The role of the IESG in the standards process is described in BCP 9; I would characterize what's described there as having the IESG be the primary authority for standards decisions, but given the possibility of appeals, not the final authority. There is some degree of terminology definition involved, so I could see others providing a different answer. You did not ask me specifically for my opinion on "members of the community" but since I'm replying to the rest of your note I'll make an attempt at that as well: to me, taking an action to have an interaction with the activities of the IETF is enough to make one a member of the community. That could be as much as reading email on our mailing lists, through authoring drafts and RFCs, holding leadership positions, and more. Different individuals will of course have different levels of involvement in the community, and I acknowledge that there will be situations in which the level of involvement will matter for one reason or another, but the core idea remains that we are an open community and taking action to be a part of it ought to suffice. -Ben On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 12:47:56AM -0700, S Moonesamy wrote: > Dear Ms Kuehlewind, > > There is the following sentence in Mr Klensin's email: "The IETF has > a rather long and difficult history, with only a few exceptions since > the POISED and POISSON WGs, of there being two types of process > change proposals". Is that incorrect? > > There is also the following sentence: "They, and especially ones that > members of the IESG see as a threat to their authority or the way > they do things and sometimes as adding work, have tended to > vanish". Is the IESG the final authority for all standards decisions? > > The term "members of the community" is mentioned in your reply. What > does a person have to do become a member of the community? > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy >
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Alissa Cooper
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Keith Moore
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Eric Rescorla
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Sean Turner
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Alissa Cooper
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Alissa Cooper
- RE: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Roni Even (A)
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) John Levine
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Alissa Cooper
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Alissa Cooper
- RE: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Roni Even (A)
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Keith Moore
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Ben Campbell
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Barry Leiba
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Ben Campbell
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Keith Moore
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Mark Nottingham
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Ben Campbell
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) John C Klensin
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Ben Campbell
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Ben Campbell
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Alissa Cooper
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) John C Klensin
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Keith Moore
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Jari Arkko
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Patrick McManus
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) S Moonesamy
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) S Moonesamy