Re: I-D Action: draft-rsalz-termlimits-00.txt

Keith Moore <> Thu, 21 October 2021 17:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09D423A094E for <>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 10:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2PXEu4bXSmgd for <>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 10:57:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAD223A0944 for <>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 10:57:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2485A5C014B; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 13:57:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 21 Oct 2021 13:57:39 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; 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=JyTiXS IZPwU8rgLeeTY0Zqv6WDquz8+8BaPQcoava+8=; b=fkf2TgUsDPnJ9U/ZdOZbfJ +UCBuAiJshukIPc6xUJnyd9SOhK8PNFUuFZmfOPJZq38kxxWAtL52PeyUDqrf9qL FMXJI7HtCP5EXW3DcvK370UtawtUz4wsoq2orfK7a3TYKxZ1bTaeyAaWi2El//Ct cpN5c3Lu12T6PrVGR1BlJcOZ6Wb08oMQIGWtAp2ZvJSC+UbSzwrI8n/liu9OtJuX kx87DRHGzKi8F8TGFYO1BJwAdWb1NlyOJd8qhDYclt/TJ7qcyYvPypNK1FRpqu1S Qbj4zDR3GmImqsaX4ZlEoqROzQ+rQtR/yFG5Jeau36cyDAnHkf2gBHqe8a22BTJQ ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:EqpxYd4C2WpnV7M1VqtrP1isxwr2WMJJ2LGR64w-boTVJN6jzs145w> <xme:EqpxYa7Il-dQ2psozpJKnpH0mVs3ZuB3AdkeG6uY9jpljq3GCoXbFDCOuMVVgH6M5 QH4-v7jGFV_aQ>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:EqpxYUcetdWKuolOJvvJGkqECAJIST0pEVJE7vG9YRIo0lDH1oVfkkn7HEW1sDs8XIuTwyefH5CV1SWhkjz_MlVwDliZgDVDAgaZNruU4Q>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrvddviedguddujecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgesrgdtreertdefjeenucfhrhhomhepmfgvihht hhcuofhoohhrvgcuoehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomh eqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepveefteduieegtdelvddvtddufeejjeffvdefteejieeu lefgtdfggedtffektedunecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrg hilhhfrhhomhepmhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:EqpxYWIaqXcmknYd2cFgA_l4cLl2wWQ838d5xWH7Xsq7clV5twOlkQ> <xmx:EqpxYRIMUGtzH2XwdxytyqHYtU_Yk1GhfJ6LexkxGHKvS4s6a6uoAQ> <xmx:EqpxYfzra9lsY-B8nBBFHAEPfVKpfLpnSDekwK-y2PqNdcJixhoD1A> <xmx:E6pxYUkjH6OH_KfKz3e9XRXzIHez7s2eGLyyLEbr4md5H_IgiscCyw>
Received: by (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 13:57:38 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-rsalz-termlimits-00.txt
To: Barry Leiba <>
Cc: IETF discussion list <>
References: <20211021005426.639E92B1D176@ary.qy> <> <>
From: Keith Moore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 13:57:38 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------424E472CD6708755685A26C5"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 17:57:46 -0000

On 10/21/21 1:43 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:

>> If we think we need more churn in ADs, the solution is some combination
>> of finding/grooming more good candidates and making it easier for people
>> to serve, so that the nomcom has better candidates to choose from.
> I think this is a really key point: I would rather see us put the
> effort into figuring out how to scale the AD job so that more good
> people are willing and able to do it.  I think that's critical to the
> IETF's long-term viability.

We have this problem in the IETF that we're really not very good at 
saying "no" to taking on new work of dubious value, and we're even worse 
at saying "no" to a working group that wants to extend its charter past 
its original work items and/or timeframe.

There's a related problem in that the entire IESG is essentially the 
review panel for every IETF Consensus action and for many more decisions 
also.   Even though IESG has streamlined these discussions considerably 
over the years, in some sense, every new AD increases the complexity of 
making decisions.

But from where I sit, the biggest problem is that we have too many WGs, 
and too many that exist for too long.   We need to focus on what's of 
core importance for the Internet, and also try to actually do more 
relevant work than we have been doing.