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

Eric Rescorla <> Mon, 16 September 2019 12:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 295A712006B for <>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 05:30:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ytxtrtW0vYeX for <>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 05:30:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 124681200BA for <>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 05:30:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id m13so5602563ljj.11 for <>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 05:30:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=AQ+VrjhICSZNKkV5hcBTbiF4Sat51DneUkvsVTbRXW8=; b=k9FXgRlqkDHRmwLZKMR1ZUZMEy1eqSV1Z9LJltHrc7C5jQSGcfYJe2lU+2Fh5Ob9oY KZct3ad9iC1dQzHlh1WMVgGNRwXiBG+NCaML4AB9FPT4h7tpz7wPlbhQ5jF9+WZRPJ4o ERd9XaiTY1NAiVhxOgJzdigpCzx2VGH8/LFm/cIdXci7UwGQVgMIgKAGbD+7ws0E88sK bUe4LhYXMtnYU2JfF65gsBST8KED7Y1az3Ba8TqC/2bh5+qjigi+VN5AIXleLiDrWWC3 vitywmrRBLRYx5YJVz0UndOP79e/jl8S0XHeUXTPLmw7qQfSkRuem4ZgmuKW/1fdRl4b dJAg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=AQ+VrjhICSZNKkV5hcBTbiF4Sat51DneUkvsVTbRXW8=; b=nasCJzNt2lQiAUW7NOpRS5ERNfG1ByNQZy7RdewC1+BoAabkwZSi+8zA1Qu4TrvRLK x1eGTBSbcT66BY8m+tvxKckE4fxOfsQzh81+HgHVxrRxUHAglgVCRcyVqA7SCm6d6bea c2UjsKamzuyACYzAQoqazv6yjYU8GJMcY6R6s+Bn7G2HKk3RJBV0BQsoaQDripjbmemW h5Q/cBWAf5ML7Q2rpeA2gcPYrHN9JXbR5lRvQXEv7PF3NS8fsWhNl7so0TihnfCi8+n3 4yKspDOFghAzL25BM2EciFgEbv7rnFKVsa5nfKrUdZo+LZ6BFs5ZO2JyggWirZ1bvYRd NWtQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWSuhfybb+cC4LUtxLj4uk7eDTd5GulD0DDyo2fs4hfQprBd9+m oTszsrhaqbR5r1GJMRyNgcr64sJ55m7378qhpaJ5NQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqweNOpxnCqASw+pAmJiVIBrd1UroMxc9pdrUAxmJxetfoKrK2HGoKwa7wpatkFhO7uTo3bjLrJCkx3vN9g0nI0=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8ec1:: with SMTP id e1mr3412847ljl.14.1568637034332; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 05:30:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <EDBBBD9628A18755F4366D0B@PSB> <> <> <> <073FAB7287FB558ECCED2CE0@PSB> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Eric Rescorla <>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 05:29:57 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Planned experiment: A new mailing list for last-call discussions
To: Eliot Lear <>
Cc: Melinda Shore <>, IETF discussion list <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003694940592aac52e"
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: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 12:30:38 -0000


On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:38 AM Eliot Lear <> wrote:

> Hi, Eric,
> On 16 Sep 2019, at 11:41, Eric Rescorla <> 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.

This seems like it's painting with an unnecessarily broad brush. Consider
the case where a document goes through WGLC and has strong consensus. Then
an issue is raised in IETF LC on one specific aspect of the protocol and
addressed by one of the authors but nobody else speaks up. That doesn't
generally diminish the overall consensus for the document


 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