IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Try this: was Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Tue, 10 September 2019 22:08 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.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 286F41200E0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 15:08:16 -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, 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.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 I9ZLe6y1woLD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 15:08:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (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 BD7A1120019 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 15:08:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0050102.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050102.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id x8ALv1x8014416; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 23:08:12 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=MQHH3bHB/S/c7BFK4nGjmb1TiLWfGca8jK2YcL8wVIA=; b=XueBzOTOYL9uKsfH5BtQJhVQ6CHHmARIQGTev/7GkoJ/U9XuGir0zj3/2CtHKZlIicQz QzaE/MkXJwc1hNzUNe3W/k4pJCUFCoXwBW4CfYEp8VPMu4/eGLilOqCwhBmhZaBU/9MU q64jB6EJizBwC/iT3UKbSR0jm9skxHQA1UNMSH1dNM+xaAAQ+soh0NcjY92EAWNukGwI EZ8bVxsUg9bGg4catA7wk6ZrPE2lk1EWhvAY575DfAAS553pyamHDVEye1vbEmCOFgN8 alePWRZINpID4YR8eeO13mrrIw04Xx2CJ8jfiexclWAjKoHXN6MAjJUw1rb173Lt7aoS UQ==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint2 (prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com [184.51.33.19] (may be forged)) by m0050102.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 2uv1mdgns1-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 10 Sep 2019 23:08:12 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x8AM2dNX012131; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 18:08:11 -0400
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.31]) by prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2uv7vw0q7b-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 10 Sep 2019 18:08:11 -0400
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.101) by usma1ex-dag1mb3.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.103) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 18:08:06 -0400
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) by usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) with mapi id 15.00.1473.005; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 18:08:06 -0400
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
CC: RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>, IETF Discuss List <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Try this: was Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period
Thread-Topic: Try this: was Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period
Thread-Index: AQHVaBq1Rq6Pqqz9m0Kmvfrc6BMUzqcleDuA
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 22:08:05 +0000
Message-ID: <368275E4-F9F9-4B35-A764-0709C875A7D1@akamai.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgS88fD7BkrE4T0A+S99xN-b4JZDm4yu2nLAb3oiG50S4g@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.1d.0.190908
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.19.32.125]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_368275E4F9F94B35A7640709C875A7D1akamaicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-09-10_12:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=892 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1906280000 definitions=main-1909100207
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.70,1.0.8 definitions=2019-09-10_12:2019-09-10,2019-09-10 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 malwarescore=0 adultscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=862 priorityscore=1501 bulkscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1011 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1906280000 definitions=main-1909100207
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/k3qkI5Y1yrzsjME1CW5orapQs-w>
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 22:08:16 -0000

>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”

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email