Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

SM <> Sun, 12 August 2012 04:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4049E21F8499; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 21:17:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.571
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.571 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.028, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rvd5aEEFYzyS; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 21:17:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6219621F8498; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 21:17:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (IDENT:sm@localhost []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q7C4HYTj025416; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 21:17:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1344745061; bh=SxDsac6nvIim2C/+oij84oTgNT3o47+1XN/5VqZK/hw=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=sWjzZD9kqegx+Oh4e2Dawpz2BayYVAO/bEpWlG2BPLGD52kjgGcd0+hGWLm864aPq sr7ZmswvPs0PbO/6XFKI3euKrqeyBTA6yoYIW1zcRTlSm3DH9QG4r7A5fY/llBK88N dlhMLNmHoFnCEvzlscIvXmMPSRuPuOO+yPWkHQNo=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1344745061;; bh=SxDsac6nvIim2C/+oij84oTgNT3o47+1XN/5VqZK/hw=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=hZjvFrZGTvxJ/vqSU7GJa6zouzHJYgnUB+zy+WntLx7CeF6KA3xSFyBqABIXHpHQq oLVUVHN9GAs5R9BCyCMt9VwygbipQk9pwMU2u9EOJKjfbAy7pqeUoFEWU3QJmwe3uz 8gIPdlNkMrCBWgvMh4gMVMPNtZdGsJ+WTdIQf5Bc=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 20:49:26 -0700
To: Dave Crocker <>, Glen Zorn <>
From: SM <>
Subject: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: IAB <>, IETF <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 04:17:57 -0000

At 08:20 11-08-2012, Dave Crocker wrote:
>My point was that we have a process for assessing IETF support and 
>it's not being used.  Something quite different is being used.
>I'm not arguing against the document, but merely noting that an 
>implication of IETF community support is going to be present, but in 
>the absence of our having followed the process that makes that 
>(formally) correct.

In a message at the 
IETF Chair mentioned that:

   "The IETF Chair and the IAB Chair intend to sign the Affirmation in the
    next few weeks. Please send strong objections to the iab at
    and the ietf at mailing lists by 2012-08-24."

The subject line of that message says "Last Call".   The wording used 
(send strong objections) is uncommon.  The period for accepting 
comments is two weeks.  There has been comments and some 
noise.  Neither the IETF Chair nor the three Area Directors who 
commented attempted to stifle the noise.  In some other community you 
can expect a reminder about AUP ( ).

   "Recognising that moral issues are fundamental to the utility and
    success of protocols designed within the IETF, and that simply making
    a wishy-washy liberal-minded statement does not necessarily provide
    adequate guarantees of a correct and proper outcome for society,"

the IETF proposes to issue a press release.

>Bureaucracy sucks.  It's a hassle. It's always more appealing to 
>just do whatever we feel like that feels reasonable because we have 
>good intent.


At 19:06 11-08-2012, Glen Zorn wrote:
>any one other than themselves.  If support by IETF members at-large 
>is to be signified, then an online petition of some sort would be a 
>much better idea & much less deceptive.

RFCs, for example RFC 1984, have been used for such statements.