IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation)

Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com> Wed, 23 December 2015 00:51 UTC

Return-Path: <eburger@standardstrack.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D7741ACDDB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 16:51:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.012
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.012 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no
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 YzWAYH3DMa7i for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 16:51:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from biz104.inmotionhosting.com (biz104.inmotionhosting.com [173.247.247.235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A6371ACCE4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 16:51:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=standardstrack.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type; bh=oSwTmQkKufCCKXK0hxvok7Wf6HiasWpdTUjgjQEFuI0=; b=dIJemOr1kviPZJtsvL+gohdpN7qMdWK2kZRpyHvWvu0zt9HIZ+tPIpv83FHjyS1TCDsCeD+OtEgoRGUozjehNg5li1ocbZyE+RM5+B90K7X+uaAEFxqM/O2tvzi+iaub53remSrM/bHVbfDCi2qA/7dmesBh7ebzxDI/7YkjrJY=;
Received: from ip68-100-196-239.dc.dc.cox.net ([68.100.196.239]:59053 helo=[192.168.15.111]) by biz104.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from <eburger@standardstrack.com>) id 1aBXe5-0005qR-Dc for ietf@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 16:51:17 -0800
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BD85701B-E9B5-4435-894B-B664DFE2D7A4"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
Subject: Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation)
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.6b2
From: Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>
In-Reply-To: <D6278A46-19AB-48D8-B55A-48FF51B7E0EC@piuha.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 19:51:12 -0500
Message-Id: <2508B3C2-8F5F-4417-8052-E73B6F34BED1@standardstrack.com>
References: <CAC8QAcf=yAAGVN35tUCpX38y6_qGstGhK4iYuyhK94LVWrz-+A@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iL+eAFtGHKXVWMHaqi=3mGO9H1CfE4e=yZCekE9UzPR6A@mail.gmail.c om> <E7D065D8-CADC-4A65-8AC7-6ECE9CF63D4F@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <7A7519D5-FD9B-4F4D-A7E5-AC047F684623@netapp.com> <EMEW3|02dedadbe5e65aac9732e9359a7c2dberBHGjK03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|E7D065D8-CADC-4A65-8AC7-6ECE9CF63D4F@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <CAHw9_iKtck6ZSp6ofNFKLRj7-o3_UR42McTNQqsqCXfcduxAeA@mail.gmail.c om> <5674460C.1000107@krsek.cz> <4B81FA54-F79C-42CB-8024-1C653B0C9406@cisco.com> <20151218233645.GG3294@mx2.yitter.info> <56749EA4.6040801@gmail.com> <20151219000743.GH3294@mx2.yitter.info> <5676EBE9.8050304@dcrocker.net> <970B54F5-2422-4588-A95A-63E5144A8D35@gmail.com> <56789BBB.7020709@dcrocker.net> <4AE6DC68FC9B8CA113CBCDFA@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <5678D728.2080404@dcrocker.net> <5226A23C6E26B0350DE715AE@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <D6278A46-19AB-48D8-B55A-48FF51B7E0EC@piuha.net>
To: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - biz104.inmotionhosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - standardstrack.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: biz104.inmotionhosting.com: authenticated_id: eburger+standardstrack.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/cDYu0I7d_zRbO9xCmpCE8j7pX1s>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 23 Dec 2015 00:51:21 -0000

We’ve got the existence proof of the counter example in SIP. I cannot count how many times I heard, “Yes, I know foo is broken, but it has been in 2543bis-02 and now we are at 2543bis-06 and we could not possibly make a change because so many vendors implemented to bis-02.” Egad! We could not change what was in an Internet *Draft*??? Imagine the pushback to changing an RFC.

> On Dec 22, 2015, at 11:52 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>> For better or worse, I have a lot of trouble believing that
>> scenario could play out the same way today.
> 
> Mumble. I’m not sure. I seem to recall many cases
> where somebody has to explain to $vendor that
> things have changed and they can’t do what
> they wanted to do. In more cases than just
> draft changes.
> 
> Results of course vary. But, ultimately it is an IETF
> community decision on what a working group does.
> Do they weigh the existing implementation base
> or some other factors more? You or me might
> disagree with some of those decisions… perhaps
> on good grounds. I’m not sure the overall situation
> would be better if we somehow got to override
> the wg opinions. (Except of course on clear
> issues that fulfil Discuss criteria.)
> 
> Jari
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email