Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Thu, 25 April 2019 20:10 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 D8A8712024E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 13:10:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 m27Zf04u-1dk for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 13:10:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D50E6120240 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 13:10:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1hJkh3-000Jbu-6J; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 16:10:05 -0400
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2019 16:09:59 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
cc: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev
Message-ID: <8DD74B1AFDFDA6774289AF4B@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <20190425173218.GV3137@localhost>
References: <CABcZeBNdaWU4wwOK_MnWC5hOr7Lu3osmC_6_KKxB5fHuHVHyTw@mail.gmail.com> <23d54797-5c94-aa00-ec55-3f2c4fdfcfae@comcast.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20190424095017.13cdadc8@elandnews.com> <51068F13-E90F-42A2-8AE2-627D5E18B145@akamai.com> <20190424201939.GM3137@localhost> <6.2.5.6.2.20190424134823.0c9faf68@elandnews.com> <20190424211123.GO3137@localhost> <6.2.5.6.2.20190424144539.0cabcde0@elandnews.com> <20190424234334.GQ3137@localhost> <11F97591808485C30AD98A22@PSB> <20190425173218.GV3137@localhost>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/dcJGq74Y2XJufZCgMO2mKFxFhfY>
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: Thu, 25 Apr 2019 20:10:13 -0000
--On Thursday, April 25, 2019 12:32 -0500 Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 01:24:11PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote: >> Nico, >> >> Let me note two bits of history and then suggest that you (and >> others who have responded to the idea of reviewing and >> potentially approving this document by an Individual >> Submission process with the sort of righteous outrage that I >> read into your last comment/jest above) tone it down a bit. > > I think you may have misread my note. There was no outrage. > My point was that having to host a BoF due to no AD sponsoring > the I-D is hardly a serious problem. The author seemed more > upset than I thought should be the case. I won't try to speak for the author (as I've said, it would exaggerate my role in the I-D to describe it as "secondary"), but let me address what you are interpreting (correctly or not) as "upset". First note the comments in my earlier message about asking a body to make changes that increase its accountability and the vunerability of its members to unpleasant removal actions. Also note that, although different people can, and do, interpret actions in different ways and that, ADAIK, none of the people on the IESG now were on the IESG "then", the IESG doesn't have a great track record for processing community-initiated procedural changes that constrain AD behavior. The two examples that come to mind are the efforts many years ago to change WG creation and retention rules to avoid regular increases in the size of the IESG and/or the length of f2f meetings and the results of the NEWTRK WG that would have actually changed the standards process. In the first cases, despite considerable discussion, one interpretation of events is that the IESG refused to either initiate a Last Call on any of the proposals or to move in the direction of creating a WG to work on the topic. Again, people's interpretations and recollections will differ on whether there were good and substantive reasons such as an accurate judgment that the community really didn't care. NEWTRK is probably more complicated and, again, other interpretations of what happened are possible (and certainly out there) but after a BOF, long discussions about charter, and creation of a WG that did considerable work, the WG came up with I-Ds that successfully went through WG Last Call... and the IESG essentially refused to conduct an IETF Last Call on the subset of those I-Ds that would have constrained the IESG's behavior. I'm not suggesting that, in declining to handle this document as an Individual Submission that is almost entirely fine tuning, the IESG had any motivations along those lines, but, from the standpoint of those who think the proposed changes are fine-tuning needed to restore the appearance of fairness as the population of people who mostly participate remotely increases, the two possible ways to progress the document look like: (1) Focus the discussion, walling off discussions of other things that might or might not be desirable to create new mechanisms for removing members of the leadership or even make other changes to the recall procedure, hold an IETF Last Call, and, if there is community support for the proposal, approve it and move on. Assuming approval for calculation purposes, by my count and allowing for another week or so of discussion, a four-week IETF Last Call, and a month for the IESG to do its evaluation (shouldn't take that long, but...), that leads to a document in the RFC Editor's hands in mid-August. (2) Start down the path of a BOF in Montreal to think about things, possibly one organized to discuss these changes as part of a general review of nominations and accountability procedures. I think the latter is consistent with Alissa's note, although it is possible that I misinterpreted it. Now, that could move along swiftly: BOF the third week in July, approval of a charter and appointment of WG leadership on July 26, a WG meeting at IETF 106, a couple of weeks of WG Last Call starting around Dec 1, IETF Last Call starting sometime in January, document to the RFC Editor in February sometime. There are ways to make that go faster, but, if the justification for a BOF and WG is really to allow opening up the broader issues, that schedule might be optimistic. In addition, while I trust it is not the case, if the purpose of asking for a BOF and WG is to drag this out until people lose interest and move on, then the Montreal BOF is determined to be inconclusive (at least as much as matter of IESG discretion as how to handle an Individual Submission), leading to another BOF in Bangkok if people don't just give up, a WG chartering process that stretches at least into January, discussions continuing until at least halfway through 2020 (again, if people don't just lose interest), and then no guarantees that the IESG will actually act on the WG's conclusions if, against all odds, it reaches conclusions. Again, not speaking for either Subramanian or even myself, it is not completely irrational for those who see the I-D as making a very small but important change to restore to appearance of fairness to compare the two options, consider the Independent Submission one _much_ more appropriate, and to question the effects and motivation for the BOF-plus-WG plan... especially in the light of the last several new documents and updates to older ones that affect the recall process being handled as Individual Submissions/ john p.s. If one wants to open the entire can of worms, I've believed for some years that, as the IETF becomes more diverse, the whole idea of handling Individual Submissions at the discretion of ADs has become inappropriate and prone to abuse and unfairness. Many of us can find at least a few examples of documents that appear to have been processed on that track because the submitters were friends, cronies, or co-workers of the relevant ADs (even if some other AD nominally takes over formal responsibility) while other submitters who have lacked that type of qualification get their documents ignored or are forced toward the BOF and WG approach only to be told that not enough of the community cares about the document to be worth the investment of resources. Perhaps Individual Submissions, at least for Standards track documents, should require a petition signed by a significant number of active IETF participants with bars against too many people from the same organization. I'd hope we would not feel a need to bias _those_ petition requirements against people who contribute remotely.
- AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev S Moonesamy
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Alissa Cooper
- RE: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Adrian Farrel
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Aaron Falk
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Loganaden Velvindron
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev John C Klensin
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Brian E Carpenter
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev John C Klensin
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev John C Klensin
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Alissa Cooper
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Alissa Cooper
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Michael StJohns
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Michael StJohns
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev S Moonesamy
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev S Moonesamy
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Scott O. Bradner
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev S Moonesamy
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev John C Klensin
- Gaming email [was: AD Sponsorship of draft-moones… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Gaming email [was: AD Sponsorship of draft-mo… Stephen Farrell
- Re: Gaming email [was: AD Sponsorship of draft-mo… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev S Moonesamy
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Salz, Rich
- Recall petitions as an attack vector (was: Re: AD… John C Klensin
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Eric Rescorla
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Michael StJohns
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Keith Moore
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Salz, Rich
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev S Moonesamy
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Salz, Rich
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Nico Williams
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Andrew G. Malis
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev S Moonesamy
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Nico Williams
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Nico Williams
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Dave Taht
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Eric Rescorla
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Eliot Lear
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Salz, Rich
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev S Moonesamy
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Salz, Rich
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Joel M. Halpern
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Nico Williams
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Brian E Carpenter
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Keith Moore
- RE: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Adrian Farrel
- RE: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Adrian Farrel
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Stewart Bryant
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Andrew G. Malis
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Nico Williams
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Stewart Bryant
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Nico Williams
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Stewart Bryant
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Nico Williams
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev John C Klensin
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Nico Williams
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Michael StJohns
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev John C Klensin
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Andrew G. Malis
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Andrew Sullivan
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Alissa Cooper
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Alissa Cooper
- RE: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Adrian Farrel
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Michael StJohns
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev 'Andrew Sullivan'
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev S Moonesamy
- RE: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Adrian Farrel
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev S Moonesamy
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Suresh Krishnan
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev S Moonesamy
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev S Moonesamy
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Eric Rescorla
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev S Moonesamy
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Eric Rescorla
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev S Moonesamy
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Brian E Carpenter
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev John C Klensin
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Suresh Krishnan
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev S Moonesamy
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Stephen Farrell
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev John C Klensin
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev S Moonesamy
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev S Moonesamy
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Pete Resnick
- Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev Theodore Ts'o
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] AD Sponsorship of draft… John C Klensin
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] AD Sponsorship of draft… Loganaden Velvindron
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] AD Sponsorship of draft… Iyedi Goma
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] AD Sponsorship of draft… John C Klensin
- Remote participant fees (was : Re: [Eligibility-d… John C Klensin
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] AD Sponsorship of draft… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] AD Sponsorship of draft… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] AD Sponsorship of draft… Keith Moore
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] AD Sponsorship of draft… Pete Resnick
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] AD Sponsorship of draft… John C Klensin
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] AD Sponsorship of draft… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] AD Sponsorship of draft… Michael StJohns
- ietf meeting fees Keith Moore
- Re: ietf meeting fees Michael StJohns
- Re: ietf meeting fees Brian E Carpenter
- Re: ietf meeting fees Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: ietf meeting fees Bob Hinden
- Re: ietf meeting fees Michael Richardson
- Re: ietf meeting fees John C Klensin
- Re: ietf meeting fees Andrew Sullivan
- Re: ietf meeting fees Livingood, Jason
- Re: ietf meeting fees George Michaelson
- Re: ietf meeting fees Abdussalam Baryun