RE: Dispute process (Was: Resignation request)

Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org> Wed, 11 March 2020 23:20 UTC

Return-Path: <masinter@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 3D9293A0A1B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 16:20:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.747
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.747 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 g_0_pBN0_hYo for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 16:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-x1033.google.com (mail-pj1-x1033.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1033]) (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 4EAD33A0A15 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 16:20:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-x1033.google.com with SMTP id mj6so1571936pjb.5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 16:20:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-language:thread-index; bh=/nwIGD8MFaa1/Mbo14wZGe0ecU+ojqDDdw2fBay1aH0=; b=JdXzy08CZymMRWXTwpTC2649fWKwWxCYWvy35SavzVfwjq2M2mbtq/jwHscz+7CAdy jrkyeIBgq9GeyMQ1WQMJ5Iw6vzwQRWKIKaegBVIob+LnlezCIuBakPCBwGP9w1CNJuHb pr+3GCE8PQ33mcpAJo3or/Kwm1P4l/mMwrCIsA0kuTy39I8TXQXUpOn9aQabvXsbptGU 853yiCmQuwqHXigdH1AhCpTXqD8u+veWWHbXSPmxktqN+pcuIEoWP8dkv7CEY+UP/IcW /F1rZUQA2pFLubvtFWKdvo3oI9HzscrO0k2SITco0WOfcSn65xaeXUd0QweNHo+VE1/i d1XQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject :date:message-id:mime-version:content-language:thread-index; bh=/nwIGD8MFaa1/Mbo14wZGe0ecU+ojqDDdw2fBay1aH0=; b=om6Igt9ZiMveEnKK6B898NGj6tGFDsvxdQSbaqrYuNzyx22CV6XWmrZT2P3CEjs1n+ xfT6ZCEDuY9Pav/4G4jcYyjgTvsIgG6topJjbykYnKf1TJOv9B1pgYBzKcq0NqoRyFEL AMSwCCwwr6nVl3wHXPg61qJawrcjFFGoQ/K8a7Opsd1iCsSFbeW8WGo8gwsSSQJgsRwt 4HE6jM/uaA3ihGg23AdvbDwzj3Hf1aLz4P+xY3naxvJUkPDIZQWbV0qeC/sEweNnqju6 b9JPZVES3YZkVELajTX2g8g3cndxpZ3Ml5PdGQoLUg3g8HCWh8K3AaYvH3xkZ066k5hb Ltnw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ12L1Z0kJ/3u2Rn4lajF5MvJ4mDQ3DgmPRzx785iQnp6mROzeeO 4/2jUqYtT4j1XV/KS6npkQ4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: =?utf-8?q?ADFU+vvHELi5/N1VdyANkm14sh5tWU0Dv1l1An8VyXLJ?= =?utf-8?q?iWnzC5QNUTfzgwZ+dmv9J+hbO9EwdTvsaQ=3D=3D?=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:d890:: with SMTP id b16mr4078059plz.339.1583968849368; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 16:20:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TVPC (c-67-169-101-78.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [67.169.101.78]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d3sm51614760pfn.113.2020.03.11.16.20.48 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 11 Mar 2020 16:20:48 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Larry Masinter <masinter@gmail.com>
From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
X-Google-Original-From: "Larry Masinter" <lmm@acm.org>
To: "'Eric Rescorla'" <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: "'Nico Williams'" <nico@cryptonector.com>, "'Paul Wouters'" <paul@nohats.ca>, "'IETF'" <ietf@ietf.org>, "'Pete Resnick'" <resnick@episteme.net>
References: <3EF6505C-D442-41A4-A681-26ACF818BB4D@sobco.com> <C7B7787A-48E5-407F-9E81-BDEC2F1B2169@steffann.nl> <6651697D-A892-4CAB-BDC1-E385750294D3@gmail.com> <a708fc17-c799-2767-4a35-033b063456f5@pi.nu> <CA+q+MpU6-36xTzZL_-B-9fG8atfOiOF5-rdxFFVQV9_y8GOd8Q@mail.gmail.com> <20200310154115.GX18021@localhost> <EF46D631-4553-4378-9260-6E23BE94B14E@episteme.net> <20200310184518.GY18021@localhost> <9AB7F383-1220-4D90-BD8F-B672AF473BE9@episteme.net> <alpine.LRH.2.21.2003110930290.31299@bofh.nohats.ca> <20200311214928.GF18021@localhost> <CABcZeBM1LnigpsnXW7kcH19+0aMHWJwmQ=8=To5mr_EJU-QF-g@mail.gmail.com> <009901d5f7f7$69d335d0$3d79a170$@acm.org> <CABcZeBPR9V+gzxC7cxJQcYoFNBMag5_sM-PPPCoQOUpjzOr9nw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBPR9V+gzxC7cxJQcYoFNBMag5_sM-PPPCoQOUpjzOr9nw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Dispute process (Was: Resignation request)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 16:20:47 -0700
Message-ID: <00cf01d5f7fb$b2d2d070$18787150$@acm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00D0_01D5F7C1.067494B0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Content-Language: en-us
Thread-Index: =?utf-8?q?AQKNRVLw69kzVsgJXUEp3d/RaHpKcgJG/kR3ArRPomAC6INFAAHX?= =?utf-8?q?B3GvAdhkx08CYF7/ZgIQQv+mAoAIk/YCKGtnqgKxBBs+AjfuggACsgoANgKCL5X6p?= =?utf-8?q?d8ZmGA=3D?=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/b9gxxy-j17D9HYIhqvrA8vR8vTc>
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: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 23:20:54 -0000

 

*	This decision was made specifically to avoid arguments about the merits of documents that the WG wasn't interested in.

 

The point I was trying to make was that there is an opportunity to change a decision on 

   “is the  working group interested in X”

To

  “is it necessary to work on X to insure independent, interoperable implementations”

 

As “interest” is somewhat personal and difficult to judge “rough consensus” because everyone in the working group doesn’t have to be interested for the work to proceed.

 

Some would assert that it’s bad to define extensibility mechanisms that limit their availability

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-thanks-larry-00

 

 

From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 3:52 PM
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Cc: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>om>; Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>ca>; IETF <ietf@ietf.org>rg>; Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>
Subject: Re: Dispute process (Was: Resignation request)

 

 

 

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 3:50 PM Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org <mailto:LMM@acm.org> > wrote:

Nico wrote

Then take this to the limit.  Suppose we did some number TLS extensions
this way, with several overlapping somewhat, but in ways the authors did
not care to unify.  What would happen?

 

-Ekr wrote:

> Well, we're running this experiment now, and have been ever since late 2018, so I guess we'll find out. So far it does not seem to have been an issue.

 

The “running code” part of “ rough consensus” seems useful in resolving disputes about a working group dropping or disagreeing to some work.

 

Perhaps.

 

However, what we found is that we were spending quite a bit of time evaluating documents when what the authors really wanted was a code point. This change has reduced the need for that.

 

-Ekr