IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Mon, 01 July 2019 10:21 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 1BC74120279 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 03:21:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=opendkim.org header.b=FLvr0QfU; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=WXauF8SB
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 bxQuZ8ij41qE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 03:21:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDF7612022E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 03:21:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.115.160.171]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x61ALEvS003096 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 1 Jul 2019 03:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1561976488; x=1562062888; bh=Xv1kPBPzWpTd4yfXkRUNDwLE2Nfbc0Rk5wIyUWi0iOA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=FLvr0QfU/pUamYuf8YDETQqiZ9uZym0/dmXAdaiAcHINz59Wd9aXn5qZs9z7FNqjy fG4kWsCxWs/ApSuXUB2gxe1WMc5bPEiKgp+JQJ0b8R7aDfV8LfyK3KQeLezJy+5UhW 1cZkCofcqv93ZIuNL4dnLJ5OLTVQ0siumwLkwZIw=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1561976488; x=1562062888; i=@elandsys.com; bh=Xv1kPBPzWpTd4yfXkRUNDwLE2Nfbc0Rk5wIyUWi0iOA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=WXauF8SBmlvn0gf78z9YcKaiJF7MSjJ8HSlSIB/9GEm3VmssV+8TahbbEYSwBeomV d9zdgV3UL86Ss59lGTj9N1+bVzgB+X3Cz84uWq9UjckyT67nODv57ooC8wWY03/YPU HKnAB/7qBW3JhVEbzOcVHL7K73h6CqVHFNHRxPcY=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20190701004536.0bf92670@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2019 03:20:38 -0700
To: Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se>, ietf@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: RFC Series Editor Resignation
In-Reply-To: <8CDEE96C-B1DA-4991-B8AA-A2455B705B77@mnt.se>
References: <685B34F6-E0E2-4050-B9DD-615F475F62B7@encrypted.net> <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD18D3A5CF@dggemm526-mbx.china.huawei.com> <8CDEE96C-B1DA-4991-B8AA-A2455B705B77@mnt.se>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/jhHuob5JZ2oY_AnARYduJb6eE4Q>
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, 01 Jul 2019 10:21:44 -0000

Hi Leif,
At 11:30 PM 26-06-2019, Leif Johansson wrote:
>Personally I think accountability has value.

Yes.

There was dilution of responsibility.  The end-result is a RFC Series 
Editor role which is answerable to at least three structures.  It 
will probably be worse with the IASA 2.0.

The Internet Architecture Board claimed to have oversight over the 
RFC Editor function.  That claim is based on what was chiseled in 
obsoleted RFCs.  The Internet Architecture Board previously stated 
that it has a role as a shepherd of the RFC series.  A shepherd which 
follows process at the expense of evaluating the probability of a 
negative outcome  does not fully understand what he/she is accountable for.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email