IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Terminology discussion threads

Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> Sat, 15 August 2020 11:05 UTC

Return-Path: <jared@puck.nether.net>
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 E80C13A0CC1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 04:05:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 rXd6iqrGXhgy for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 04:05:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from puck.nether.net (puck.nether.net [IPv6:2001:418:3f4::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C82D83A0CBC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 04:05:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.155] (c-68-49-104-93.hsd1.mi.comcast.net [68.49.104.93]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by puck.nether.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 36D8E5400B2; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 07:05:44 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: Terminology discussion threads
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <20200814204125.GL3100@localhost>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2020 07:05:43 -0400
Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>, ietf@ietf.org
Message-Id: <4617C387-6289-44DF-B1DB-ADCE03920307@puck.nether.net>
References: <20200814204125.GL3100@localhost>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17G80)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/l9JdBvh566Eq-YVz86la_Gwyi6w>
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: Sat, 15 Aug 2020 11:05:48 -0000


Sent from my iCar

> On Aug 14, 2020, at 4:41 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:
> 
> That's a problem then, because the RFC publication process for the IETF
> requires IETF-wide Last Calls.  


There is the last call list (I think it's still classified as an experiment). 

> Rather than abandon the list,
> subscribers who are unhappy with certain debates should ignore them.

It's easy for things to spiral out of control without noticing it when you are participating. 

We all have different tolerances, I'm not surprised about the unsubscribes.

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status