Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"

Dave Crocker <> Wed, 28 November 2012 15:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E802F21F887D for <>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 07:50:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RAE7aHNnrcv0 for <>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 07:50:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 372A421F8788 for <>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 07:50:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qASFo7h4018733 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 28 Nov 2012 07:50:08 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 07:50:05 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Barry Leiba <>
Subject: Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 ( []); Wed, 28 Nov 2012 07:50:08 -0800 (PST)
Cc: IETF discussion list <>
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: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 15:50:17 -0000

On 11/27/2012 10:00 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>   We see a string of versions posted, some with significant updates to
> the text, but *no* corresponding mailing list discussion.  Nothing at
> all.
> When I ask the responsible AD or the document shepherd about that, the
> response is that, well, no one commented on the list, but it was
> discussed in the face-to-face meetings.
> We accept that, and we review the document as usual, accepting the
> document shepherd's writeup that says that the document has "broad
> consensus of the working group."
> So here's my question:
> Does the community want us to push back on those situations?

Just to add my own input to this:

'Want' is almost irrelevant. In formal terms, it does not matter what 
was discussed at the face-to-face nor what notes are taken about it.

The formal rules of the IETF are that mailing lists are where formal 
decisions are made.

The working group needs to establish /explicit/ support for changes /on 
the list/.

You are reporting that, in formal terms, the IESG has been approving 
documents for which there is no formal record of community support...


  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking