Re: Forum Suggestion from IETF SAA [RE: .org sale - bidding process]

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Sun, 19 January 2020 15:08 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.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 E1CCA1200B8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jan 2020 07:08:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.596
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.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 I-hLuOvP1o0Y for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jan 2020 07:08:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0DF2120044 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Jan 2020 07:08:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85A1B21368; Sun, 19 Jan 2020 10:08:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 19 Jan 2020 10:08:27 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=zZFIeS P64GotGYckUwF1TSn2Rwm38FyuJnBZYb+PS+Q=; b=eXAHqKpprmDJ7Q5t2CCG2n m5+wdMwoMPWDD3paKddERYIIpMq011VhJ0juOyU07lYpqnGE8gVdBY/mKHoUB/2e oNOpxsJEkXhN2gptsiB0UD6pNVB7vvXg4aPHMsK3hT3tCkvmEpxc30MELvmwX+JI 0BXlrSMIUANlox0IWfBPmbnadoZDMn3w2lOYJSkXK2AG8HKkt9Z5WfwdiBOw4uXH 9Y+h5KKmn1ZP3KoI2qTubd2hV0R2VdqrQzHQ5mF4XjWqMjQnzKnRJCmMQIaEba6R cE6JEZ+lFl8tGEwqi+FDFb/I5P7mHmgu9ha2IPNCZ7D1vg5DXNWEyiWsc4KvBqYA ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:63AkXsb1YNfypH7CleiPIp9IyOTwl4nbFfRJRZfSti3LtlsVovmbLA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrudefgdejvdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgesrgdtreertdefjeenucfhrhhomhepmfgvihhthhcu ofhoohhrvgcuoehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomheqne cukfhppedutdekrddvvddurddukedtrdduheenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhep mhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmnecuvehluhhsthgvrh fuihiivgeptd
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:63AkXl2aEWpH0fn45sW6Qkg4xlmoB85vJ7MsJ1F68rxW2gWFHzHmaQ> <xmx:63AkXuHOVu36eLlbsSCWnur6FCvfqADN5JFTScMSM77cnTJsqFJBqA> <xmx:63AkXqPwepOJ9ZEbIArGPH_Yb4JtdVeZ3lxHKB2F6w-x3f0wiGyxsA> <xmx:63AkXnYtuGYpHA_oXFvjSkAMFLq9a6bRRZOFs5bcH_cK5PbYuJ8D_w>
Received: from [192.168.1.97] (108-221-180-15.lightspeed.knvltn.sbcglobal.net [108.221.180.15]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id C71EB3060AA0; Sun, 19 Jan 2020 10:08:26 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Forum Suggestion from IETF SAA [RE: .org sale - bidding process]
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <CAChr6SzL7NcnEQ7J7C+zxF28faHUzHOPQuhtuNCN6z9Z1M9Hvg@mail.gmail.com> <91b0323b-a2d3-a8e3-0bce-86a53c04fba2@ietf.org> <503dd3a8-8659-7525-3b43-f9c1c5b4e3ae@network-heretics.com> <CABcZeBPp6vMs8erME5QnND+gUh-sa2Qh6vcxqu9WJdG5j4t81Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <0b25cb48-864d-756d-5812-33ed3d4eada5@network-heretics.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2020 10:08:26 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBPp6vMs8erME5QnND+gUh-sa2Qh6vcxqu9WJdG5j4t81Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------C8267EDF92C59790519EE8DB"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Z7GDTTYZgqKYh3b7rI-Es19Xzao>
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: Sun, 19 Jan 2020 15:08:31 -0000

On 1/19/20 10:03 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:

>
>     I don't think RFC 3005 was ever intended to be used as an excuse
>     to move
>     a discussion out of the IETF or to suppress discussion within IETF.
>
>
> This seems like a surprising claim given that RFC 3005 explicitly 
> lists as inappropriate postings:
>
> "Discussion of subjects unrelated to IETF policy, meetings, 
> activities, or technical concerns"
>
> I'm not taking a position on whether this subject is "unrelated to 
> IETF..." but it seems pretty clear that RFC 3005 was in fact intended 
> to allow for discussion to be moved off of the *IETF list*

I don't think this discussion is unrelated to IETF.   Technical 
decisions made in IETF have often taken into account participants' 
perceptions of trustworthiness and risk associated with roles played by 
other organizations (including both governments and NGOs).   This 
discussion within IETF seems to be useful background for future 
technical decisions.

So I suppose I could rephrase my statement as:

I don't think RFC 3005 was ever intended to be used as an excuse to move 
a discussion of relevance to IETF's work, out of the IETF, or to 
suppress discussion of topics relevant to IETF's work within IETF.

Keith