Re: LLC Board Meeting Details - 14 May 2020

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Fri, 08 May 2020 19:55 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 AF66C3A0E16 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 May 2020 12:55:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
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, SPF_HELO_NONE=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=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 SdpN1_4V7_F2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 May 2020 12:55:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12d.google.com (mail-lf1-x12d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12d]) (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 9C3403A09DC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 May 2020 12:55:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12d.google.com with SMTP id h26so2373760lfg.6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 May 2020 12:55:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=4VqdSU2Jd0P1T1J2W8HPwqWB/FcsQmdPl1lgai9TwFk=; b=CUU3c15Vvh36xmGZLX3ScTuB4nFPzs57eJo/3q5CxzBt5UDYd1TwoWfDfUN+fNWpRa T3gVSQJXn4YO6GZB90tZTCQQBPvyLE9i6dxt8wJs8A8TYih6flFn99mW1WltXbxc0Hec ptrFtd+ocYsJYNvIVINTklHYRiYKrKbn5aPbZ8YiJu42NYkbB6CjRm9Np45kW4aybUQQ +Z3LNH6Mg7osWgcGPOqY5rlK+RSfpITon8AF2h91cussLtiFTgTFTQvUfmxbLl9bDMI7 Xo011y4/86D7cGZ3ivuLJxKuxliLGdzo+4zNUHoSHv9P8udQvL4t/YamuIUGrbNzqXvM Zxrw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4VqdSU2Jd0P1T1J2W8HPwqWB/FcsQmdPl1lgai9TwFk=; b=YHaaPhHwcJ5Z4B7oRp4GJV82ihIAn7zfr/AZ+gjxvFxCBJA6aW9Kk2dMrCXtzqRm0z 8X7gYQDhljmJ+TL8Tw44+TusL6gVC30xpIgCmL0u2Bag7lorpKZFv2xRbo6X9cgSmJBN fz6Lpx9GDDOznIuvyMHZGo8N4nwFiWhaPeDar5mzHpn8djc/I96QuDiv5ZADFk5IW7KW YTcCNMstznPbkS/CGN/WtBb56KZct969laMIbsz7e0v/P/ZrcYfgaMKcZ74/+tLHpHgG 6nJdX3eIWaa443P59/y9KtiuDIw3vmKNIiO01zCCiL1vzKwvJKa6UQMEBk8c1FaFAmiw xuQA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531EUYy1f0Wr/PHrpwiEUh0Dv2yI7AbV75M61GFwHLREmItpD8mo eyj/s02zZd5uN7l5sDbT9gO95oJ6jXsf6dVvtBdN3A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwNdRHksdYARgyhVXzzBXQl/ppb2thj4oyVjA0N6JGFJ/Tyg573GffGF2Lp/R8IIrPIi/a9KAWXs2Dem6x4PSU=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:5502:: with SMTP id n2mr2927140lfe.168.1588967701329; Fri, 08 May 2020 12:55:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <158889282783.23704.1421198034874120499@ietfa.amsl.com> <fc27f4e6-c71a-a266-f501-96a0ed637367@gmail.com> <2D35A1DD-72E2-4E09-8A81-32770D357D29@cooperw.in> <9717fa55-af80-050b-3dd6-1bec957a31d0@gmail.com> <CABcZeBO_6vwxn3XTJfJvHGifx-boyKQ2KxVAS2-x-i5NFKpd9w@mail.gmail.com> <bfbea793-9b07-ee56-3b34-cf2054562e66@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <bfbea793-9b07-ee56-3b34-cf2054562e66@gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Fri, 08 May 2020 12:54:25 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBOVCv7P5nvGiae__f=pnMzXq0BtdweFAiAWLwgdg6_gZw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: LLC Board Meeting Details - 14 May 2020
To: Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000065d13f05a5285f61"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/cIeQlraLIRRNaqw4DXb4qfL1HwY>
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: Fri, 08 May 2020 19:55:18 -0000

On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 12:39 PM Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 08/05/2020 14:51, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
> <clip>
>
> I would make two points here:
>
> First, I think you are wrong on the merits. I do not believe that support
> for IPv6 (nor DNSSEC, nor TLS 1.3) should be a primary criterion for
> selecting tools. It may make us sad that these technologies are not being
> adopted at a faster rate but I don't think that inconveniencing ourselves
> in order to make a statement is the right answer.
>
> Perhaps one of the reasons they are not being sufficiently adopted because
> of the lack examples of people and organizations using them and the main
> propose is that as much as possible organizations start to do that in the
> many ways possible, and IETF is an natural one. Really do you see such an
> inconvenience on that ?
>

Well, the other example besides videoconferencing that usually comes up
here is Github, and yes, it would be quite a large inconvenience not to be
able to use Github.


Second, for the LLC board to take this kind of unilateral action on a
> matter which does not primarily impact the efficient operation of the IETF
> but rather is about messaging, seems like precisely the kind of overreach
> that people were worried the LLC would engage in. That kind of policy
> decision should come from the IETF, and as Alissa says, the position you
> are espousing does not seem to have gathered even rough consensus.
>
> When you say "unilateral" action I see as something natural. I don't think
> the community has to tell very detailed how the Board conduct every step of
> their business, that's why I am askinf for their consideration for this
> matter. They should have a fair amount of freedoom to decide smaller things
> like this which as I said are just administrative decisions.
>

But this is not just an administrative decision, because you are asking the
LLC board to take into account factors which are not about the efficiency
of the IETF. And for that reason I would expect the LLC to remain agnostic
until instructed otherwise by the community.

-Ekr