IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] Try this: was Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Tue, 10 September 2019 22:29 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 6806812003F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 15:29:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 qpqW8AOHh2ma for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 15:29:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACD10120019 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 15:29:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46Sfpz4K21z1Z1Lk; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 15:29:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1568154587; bh=O4AVtFAR4m43oyaRIFvfgbvu4TLsdmfGkCGJ/aturTo=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Za6pX/gRb5u3jaIjW5JKDL8tkzjE0CUkebBMyKQYSgg7gDMxpPy7ot8gmDgbVmsCR 79E9meyBAtBLNSkSR3lLdCssMMMa/M4tjLEJS66KjwPoof5G9uB9d1/0n1Fm/0eJiO Doug3CwjqIGfQfENfz8oije9wSLdiDM8b4d9YB5w=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at maila2.tigertech.net
Received: from [172.20.7.244] (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 46Sfpy4hz0z1Z1Jp; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 15:29:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Try this: was Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, IETF Discuss List <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <ec715385-93ca-ddf0-f9b1-d0e4ae1666fe@nthpermutation.com> <CAL02cgTqDTXgG1bU1DGBkdQ7XwV=2ryJzQU1QD8yNba-7ngk3A@mail.gmail.com> <44cbe750-e030-69d7-54ba-5eaeccc5f512@gmail.com> <CABcZeBNw8c17F0bvcSJoS4R=dk_KoSx1jWkEnupUUps6k8UcGg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL02cgS88fD7BkrE4T0A+S99xN-b4JZDm4yu2nLAb3oiG50S4g@mail.gmail.com> <368275E4-F9F9-4B35-A764-0709C875A7D1@akamai.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <e6400b75-ac96-6dd3-8652-db915305be25@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 18:29:43 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <368275E4-F9F9-4B35-A764-0709C875A7D1@akamai.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/gIgerCUimXebNl8LhG0NOrk9p28>
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: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 22:29:49 -0000

It sounds like you disagree with the IAB / RSOC's decision to hire 
someone who would be responsible for some aspects of the RSE role but 
not for all such aspects.
If you do not believe the IAB / RSOC has the right / responsibility / 
permissions needed to do that, then it would seem we have a more basic 
problem than Mike's rewrite of the SoW.
(I have lots of disagreements with recent RSOC decisions.  This happens 
to be one where I think the IAB and the RSOC have made the best of a bad 
set of choices.)

Yours,
Joel

On 9/10/2019 6:08 PM, Salz, Rich wrote:
>  >Even if one disagrees with the content of RFC 6635 (which we probably 
> all do, in different ways), there are other, non-Informational documents 
> that specify how to replace it with something that has community 
> consensus.  And this ain’t it.
> 
> Agree.  We have a process/mechanism. One of the worst things we could do 
> is ignore it because “this time it’s different”
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email