Re: Planned experiment: A new mailing list for last-call discussions

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Mon, 16 September 2019 11:38 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.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 C3642120838 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 04:38:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 cjncCMquYplO for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 04:38:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 361AC120088 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 04:38:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4346; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1568633881; x=1569843481; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=ybI3C3qthOCGOUya1KBrdYgb3La7GVimVCvR8xCW7fg=; b=UpAZ6vqNu/EUIkfB+g0V67GYAdKphNsbxUrxQxJtNC0ZhCgeG27ZMBQd BNmUHiakSzQGWmlxUwxLfselCDQ5WlvrnnMCqm4rdy2k+XfOZ+Oy+2DNn QdO5VnvGTNgcBj+bDBL7mw/oXm5YzIvXbUE1VswKlzxcU+zJQmgtlrurR Y=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 488
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ADAADAc39d/xbLJq1mGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUwQBAQEBAQsBgRWCQiASKoQhiBxgiBqHQ4tShgoUgWc?= =?us-ascii?q?CBwEBAQkDAQEvAQGEPwKDEjQJDgIDCQEBBAEBAQIBBQRthTqFSgEBAQECASN?= =?us-ascii?q?LCwULCwQKChUVAgJXBhODIgGBew+rbIEyhUyEaxCBNAGBUIo/gX+BEScfgkw?= =?us-ascii?q?+g3+BBIJMMoImBJVxlnmCLIIugRORPxuNeosfikWZNYMRAgQGBQIVgVI4gVg?= =?us-ascii?q?zGggbFTsqAYJBPoIQF44kPgMwkHYBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,512,1559520000"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="16862121"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 16 Sep 2019 11:37:46 +0000
Received: from [10.61.225.65] ([10.61.225.65]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x8GBbjg5028681 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 16 Sep 2019 11:37:46 GMT
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <DE65D956-705F-4F5E-A00B-2D62E493BAB6@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8810FB02-3C0C-4432-B8ED-681E83C69036"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Subject: Re: Planned experiment: A new mailing list for last-call discussions
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 13:37:44 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBNCgjJzkqZvHwNrGNvxQoJUqG59-q_12mYc59yWk+cT4A@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
References: <CALaySJKvdoy9MtzHMwq-Ew-EJoUs0V8t+y01FL-E5r3xdyRemQ@mail.gmail.com> <EDBBBD9628A18755F4366D0B@PSB> <CALaySJ+cR0k=HpCvf5cSN4ony9zvzVeOZc=Qqot=cQN=jJF2fA@mail.gmail.com> <E032E905-E395-46CF-8C56-C3EBB8E20C9C@gmail.com> <CABcZeBO0NbEVQ67j8ZRgKXmjT3JeLFAgnSpfMA8CqAg1dp_j5w@mail.gmail.com> <073FAB7287FB558ECCED2CE0@PSB> <CABcZeBMegPn+hJuANAz9-iqon9n6R0Tsno8ECPe0MzEabDKf2Q@mail.gmail.com> <05477d7a-6cfb-43ae-4984-3b491bfe3ef1@gmail.com> <CABcZeBMujVh9VgcVx0s35Y4qoiaBcNjbb-v9jagsKuqJmwZ2gw@mail.gmail.com> <9ab35c4e-c96c-0908-ded4-d16476aa954b@gmail.com> <CABcZeBNCgjJzkqZvHwNrGNvxQoJUqG59-q_12mYc59yWk+cT4A@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.225.65, [10.61.225.65]
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/e_E1RjQ-T40eny2Gr_btrxqH4Dw>
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: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 11:38:03 -0000

Hi, Eric,

> On 16 Sep 2019, at 11:41, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>; wrote:
> 
> I don't think that's what I said, or at least not what I meant to say. If people who have had their say in the WG subsequently opt not to participate in the IETF list -- for whatever reason, even if because they find the IETF list aversive -- that does not mean that their views are not included in the consensus process.


If a point is raised during LC discussion that has not been addressed earlier, then that person is absenting him/herself from the consensus process at the time of LC.  If the point was already raised during WG development, then that person’s view could count.  After all, if the same point was raised, and s/he answered it once, why would that view be considered no longer valid?   As a practical matter, I don’t know how that would be taken into account. And that is not the same as the person being silent during WGLC.

Eliot