Re: Consultation on *revised* IETF LLC Draft Strategic Plan 2020

Jay Daley <> Thu, 04 June 2020 04:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C2D83A0F4B for <>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 21:41:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pZK0P4icJdAb; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 21:41:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from macbook-pro.localdomain (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7AF023A0F2D; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 21:41:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jay Daley <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C05C2C65-3AB0-40E0-B948-90C2E074320A"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
Subject: Re: Consultation on *revised* IETF LLC Draft Strategic Plan 2020
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2020 16:41:21 +1200
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: ietf <>
To: Stephen Farrell <>
References: <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
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, 04 Jun 2020 04:41:37 -0000

> On 4/06/2020, at 8:10 AM, Stephen Farrell <> wrote:
> Hiya,
> On 03/06/2020 20:43, Jay Daley wrote:
>> I do not think it is appropriate that we are limited in our strategy 
>> to concepts that every reader understands.
> Sorry, my point was not that I didn't understand but
> that it was either waffly or indicative of over-reach.

It would be helpful to understand which of those you think it is as they are quite different criticisms.

>> First, I should note that the term "collectively" is
>> something you have added and not something that comes
>> form this document.
> Yes, you have implicitly made that (false) assumption.
> I just called it out.
> In my experience there is often a significant and real
> difference between what some person perceives to be the
> position/opinion/strategy of the IESG and the reality
> of the situation. An IESG "strategy" could not be that
> were it not the collective consensus of the IESG.

I think you misunderstood my misunderstanding of how you used the term "collectively".  I thought you meant the IESG, IAB etc getting together and collectively agreeing a set of strategic objectives, not each making a collective decision.

Yes I’m sure you’re right there’s a chance that the LLC might misperceive the IESG position/opinion/strategy and I’m equally sure the IESG will say so if that happens.

>> If you want it formally recognised that those bodies cannot have 
>> strategic objectives, or cannot have collective strategic
>> objectives, then you should really be taking that point of view to
>> them and asking them to affirm that in a statement rather than trying
>> to impose that view in a second order document such as this.
> That's actually a great example of why your text is wrong.
> If the upshot of your text were that the IESG or IAB went
> running about strategising to keep the LLC happy, then we
> would be entirely in tail-wagging-dog territory. (I can
> totally get why you may think exactly the opposite about
> that though.) In any case, building on an assumption known
> to be false is not only bad planning but also bad logic.

To summarise your two objections, hopefully using your own words accurately:

You don’t think that the LLC strategy should reference the strategic objectives of the IESG, IAB etc because:

1.  By having this, the LLC might push the IESG/IAB into running about strategising

2.  Those bodies cannot, collectively, have an agreed set of such "strategic objectives" at any given moment in the sense meant here.

My response to 1 is that I understand why you think that, though from what little I know of the IESG and IAB they appear to have such a strong sense of purpose, strong personalities and full workload that tail-wagging-dog is a very, very low risk.  

My response to 2 is that we just disagree and I don’t detect any support for your position or other indication of a path to resolve this and so I think we need to leave it here.


> Cheers,
> S.
> <0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc>

Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director