IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: On diversity in the NomCom

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Thu, 16 July 2020 15:06 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.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 767E53A0A8B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 08:06:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, 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=akamai.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 uN_3OTgeqFGl for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 08:06:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (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 0210C3A0A86 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 08:06:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0122330.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 06GF1ZPT021904; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 16:06:08 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=kSTx/JmZPMIJ+ktMwneR1tJ3lgFKDpN/Z/oKoDFykCw=; b=LnqrsFeJoRjCzv6nOBAjpGZmV0RI4lvPMdBHHRv25U+Hi2zVl9okzoHT6wYAhwKbpwE4 vzM8YtvHseFKbcEysh55LitTQEMb5GaxWGVsJ7rDtfR2LZsUX/wrRc81IeYVsC2Evqds 7il/9qnKZBzklt3kXtridNqbSAYuVppcmMI1FgiyNra5jnWDFFadnSwpp2qOWLIyqki0 u/CDoidfIdSkFhIqazZvHbMiqZjqDtBL9UaAC2w4xMduR3s8QMx8L9/aKmNZ6B2Tnj3r pWJeYDi2Zs7+/LIiRUW6BoGUVT6O+R6UA5H8leS9EvEKRml2EYVOqb1eH+QPwnugZEcA zw==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint7 (a72-247-45-33.deploy.static.akamaitechnologies.com [72.247.45.33] (may be forged)) by mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 327a6ppjme-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 16 Jul 2020 16:06:08 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint7.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint7.akamai.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 06GF5QuS008289; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 11:06:07 -0400
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.32]) by prod-mail-ppoint7.akamai.com with ESMTP id 3278ry2yj8-12 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 16 Jul 2020 11:06:04 -0400
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.101) by usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 11:04:34 -0400
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) by usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.006; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 11:04:34 -0400
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
CC: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: On diversity in the NomCom
Thread-Topic: On diversity in the NomCom
Thread-Index: AQHWWRXbkAVbp/OIz0GrPT1fLLWZLKkG9TeAgAAFEYCAAOnngIAAx5iAgADOkACAACmUgIAAOHYAgAB2RoA=
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 15:04:34 +0000
Message-ID: <A3B22E6E-8A16-4C1F-B3BF-30D27DCE1616@akamai.com>
References: <7429392e-a411-4c40-8fa9-f03de558b7ca@dogfood.fastmail.com> <d3187a20-76a8-0ef9-d32f-6b8e400a0d30@gmail.com> <ee517835-1ad4-e2c0-a33b-e194f7c37f95@gmail.com> <CAChr6SxXwKwwtXxL+9f2Zz8kufpnOLmHHkK-dY6PC+k9mNE4+w@mail.gmail.com> <16772aec-9ead-3658-16c8-dfbcdfa19edc@gmail.com> <CAChr6Sy+a=ziSH-D8Q+wQLDA6rEXg2SfiE+4V7trr2z20kQs9Q@mail.gmail.com> <2D8F8708458BF390168BD5EC@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <2D8F8708458BF390168BD5EC@PSB>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.38.20061401
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.19.118.140]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <60ACC74B631E5542AB1511EB4044753E@akamai.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-07-16_06:2020-07-16, 2020-07-16 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxlogscore=851 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2007160114
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-07-16_07:2020-07-16, 2020-07-16 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxlogscore=788 adultscore=0 impostorscore=0 clxscore=1015 priorityscore=1501 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2007160114
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/VpPqvu_zbeBl6AC0cs-Uv2IBchM>
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: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 15:06:11 -0000

> I also note that many other SDOs publish informative,
non-standard, documents in the form of technical reports and
that things we would call Experimental (or our original
definition of Proposed Standard) show up as things "for trial
use".  So, again, fwiw, we are not the only, or even the first,
body to conclude that formal review, consensus, and publication
of such documents is a practical necessity.

If we were to do this, we need another term besides RFC.  After 20 years, everyone "knows" that RFC means an Internet standard.

(Yes, I exaggerate about what everyone knows)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email