Re: BCP written by another AD [was Re: BCP97bis]

Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 06 December 2021 06:48 UTC

Return-Path: <ek.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 D4CFF3A076C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Dec 2021 22:48:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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] 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 UkHMJzbPPmwx for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Dec 2021 22:48:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi1-x235.google.com (mail-oi1-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::235]) (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 800BE3A07E4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Dec 2021 22:48:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-x235.google.com with SMTP id s139so19678960oie.13 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 05 Dec 2021 22:48:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=NmvuKOHoYL6s6NPqHOcrzjczp7j8rUqazUEOxwFzMsk=; b=fSe2OeqSuHu9PjbhSTpWzCbkNTkXVf8VZ7IeBVTs+Ykr74AZPDusCCFbwXQzhsC8sN YhIBQsry2BIc0IRnN8Tt7HUGBejxe7QxjRT8Say/H8PYsIAhveZXNPMdBJ0QRBRO0wM8 lpI8kfciuQeZyAw4l798ml9L1qb3SQyCSD+ulLnP9e4iv3t12q+vwEZNMtAQM9RbllMJ cEaYWAP9D/ioVDAjrxNh7ofR5nCOhoYpNGAo8AxQUSjVXASX1qkVhlHTFuVQPPpIIUwk O+Q5HwbCda6Ja+u3J1X4nozBREE3YquZwbsIVyTesbfvGl1Tm9CNYITmH7IsKLG7gu+2 +u3w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=NmvuKOHoYL6s6NPqHOcrzjczp7j8rUqazUEOxwFzMsk=; b=MStkQW4ElDOfOUXCrsG3j3w+2tmKM6GXnh4Tj9ANllWRALv/aqS2WiT0B5p8ibgkso o3zUGUnrpsATfOOy8KUJuQI7sAIhvAlZQfstkG/zRNKHr4tUHI8hDE1fZfZH3KvcnLmq 4imbmQL89eXGaC+ltwBAWxWRUACgZ7lQFdNcgoydf6thXlO1GEphgN68DX0NoFOUHYHh sawLHTo6B7iBDa2U+YJjIwMrrXvFNPJ3rBxYqcO5O3T2R/GkHNYjCf+Bejpi90zdbJTc v8qgMv6U9lrR9hmqeO/+EMWp3714jpu8cfxONWazySykR7qRuC9KyboV/Na1nG0i4l+M HafQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530MMWJ2gfoWMSZJHd9B0xdiJEe7K5pVuQMCJlG4A63tqjq6eGNe iev8t+E0z+4IVpHMNrRHL8iJmGCWBdeH/F8ZkK0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxHHnZrzEOraxKOFOtK8SyZ6JRvS9/HZLzdA42K6GX9xZBAnLtfu+nf5Jf5Cq7eH/0YQcJRS/4pQwx3CBOTs6U=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:2187:: with SMTP id be7mr22400625oib.97.1638773323229; Sun, 05 Dec 2021 22:48:43 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAL0qLwbwvs2Cp_urgJ=hzc6yEMGDaz3C0xf6RQXRrB89wAx=Rw@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwavK5dYdmYPVxdMT5rA=jBZv1cEyAsVBEWOD7p9MoZR1g@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwa4ChOsuMkmoP_sAGv3Wn2AcSz1OkijmxZzP+MGvnwviA@mail.gmail.com> <849D7F9E-8AD4-4CE8-A66C-358FB1F2E6AE@tzi.org> <3AC61568-DBDC-4ADB-9935-9C53333AE7E2@akamai.com> <CAL0qLwZvCq7R=WBFsrwf51CKSN8ur0Yj-F=VOHnP=hQD0ooj-A@mail.gmail.com> <890A4965-D847-4606-849C-A0C8D8FD3B0C@akamai.com> <CAL0qLwZtBiuh5n3U_pKma1s4ymPOCy7CY0pFaaacx6NDYNu5AQ@mail.gmail.com> <44C4286C-408C-4280-8956-3DA2931AFFF1@akamai.com> <CAL0qLwZaxKTwout-M2eKm2R9s7-kHzXW_uj626FLJ7y4X28PFw@mail.gmail.com> <3A02E2BD-05B7-4FF2-B91C-129424417ECF@akamai.com> <4cbac3ce-9337-d584-1cf2-d1bfc9cf1b65@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4cbac3ce-9337-d584-1cf2-d1bfc9cf1b65@gmail.com>
From: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2021 22:48:32 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMGpriXB9W6JD3m4Z69HP0H9xUBP2ssqunzsAwREHuYTcf2JQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: BCP written by another AD [was Re: BCP97bis]
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cc6d0b05d274a59b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/UzHNmX058z0h21RAk8aO1Y2v_hQ>
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, 06 Dec 2021 06:48:54 -0000

On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 2:16 PM Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 19-Oct-21 08:36, Salz, Rich wrote:
> > So I’m notice that a single-author AD-sponsored BCP revision is
> getting a relatively lot amount of pushback on one particular area from a
> number of very experienced IETFers (to be clear: other than me).
> >
> >
> >
> > Perhaps an AD sponsoring a BCP written by another AD is not the best way
> forward for something that has such a broad impact.
>
> ADs (or recent IESG alumni) tend to be the subject matter experts on
> arcana of the standards process. I think it's entirely to be expected that
> they will draft process documents, and very likely that they will be
> motivated to do so.
>
> As this discussion shows, there is plenty of daylight on what they are
> doing, so I don't see any harm.
>

"plenty of daylight" and the doc hasn't even properly advanced to IETF LC
yet (awaiting an update), so I think there will still be plenty of time
for community review.