IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation)

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Tue, 22 December 2015 16:52 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6E821A8703 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 08:52:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 48N1ZrjwLm1c for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 08:52:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83D3E1A8701 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 08:52:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C15BA2CCE5; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 18:52:18 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jQW8pOeB5hLO; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 18:52:18 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 312F82CCAE; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 18:52:18 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Subject: Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C6E68C80-46EB-4688-9C75-6EEE06893E26"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.1
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <5226A23C6E26B0350DE715AE@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 18:52:16 +0200
Message-Id: <D6278A46-19AB-48D8-B55A-48FF51B7E0EC@piuha.net>
References: <CAC8QAcf=yAAGVN35tUCpX38y6_qGstGhK4iYuyhK94LVWrz-+A@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iL+eAFtGHKXVWMHaqi=3mGO9H1CfE4e=yZCekE9UzPR6A@mail.gmail.c om> <E7D065D8-CADC-4A65-8AC7-6ECE9CF63D4F@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <7A7519D5-FD9B-4F4D-A7E5-AC047F684623@netapp.com> <EMEW3|02dedadbe5e65aac9732e9359a7c2dberBHGjK03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|E7D065D8-CADC-4A65-8AC7-6ECE9CF63D4F@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <CAHw9_iKtck6ZSp6ofNFKLRj7-o3_UR42McTNQqsqCXfcduxAeA@mail.gmail.c om> <5674460C.1000107@krsek.cz> <4B81FA54-F79C-42CB-8024-1C653B0C9406@cisco.com> <20151218233645.GG3294@mx2.yitter.info> <56749EA4.6040801@gmail.com> <20151219000743.GH3294@mx2.yitter.info> <5676EBE9.8050304@dcrocker.net> <970B54F5-2422-4588-A95A-63E5144A8D35@gmail.com> <56789BBB.7020709@dcrocker.net> <4AE6DC68FC9B8CA113CBCDFA@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <5678D728.2080404@dcrocker.net> <5226A23C6E26B0350DE715AE@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/kdSQHXkdhfx1JP64PwMkzdFCJYw>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, dcrocker@bbiw.net
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 22 Dec 2015 16:52:22 -0000

> For better or worse, I have a lot of trouble believing that
> scenario could play out the same way today.

Mumble. I’m not sure. I seem to recall many cases
where somebody has to explain to $vendor that
things have changed and they can’t do what
they wanted to do. In more cases than just
draft changes.

Results of course vary. But, ultimately it is an IETF
community decision on what a working group does.
Do they weigh the existing implementation base
or some other factors more? You or me might
disagree with some of those decisions… perhaps
on good grounds. I’m not sure the overall situation
would be better if we somehow got to override
the wg opinions. (Except of course on clear
issues that fulfil Discuss criteria.)

Jari

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email