Re: hampering progress

Brian E Carpenter <> Wed, 21 April 2021 20:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 212C63A3643 for <>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 13:50:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qisg5nkTK_s9 for <>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 13:50:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F8A33A363D for <>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 13:50:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id j7so21676779pgi.3 for <>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 13:50:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xXnoZWstySqhBdAK38cMR7rp9KFTQbEUk0hjtVhFjWM=; b=dRKj1yZbZlHQEmcKaJTHDwsSRmds+S/zOb3YolPCQzXQm/JCYs9j1ZWVla3XJl9M5T wb8hvICn0WWLuvcG8+xp1u35eG02seDCI0TSeAc/fXdPx6FsGh24OmSbzxDb63mnCU7s pFyf+af4zuNDBbitCzJtF0Jd+T6cFuFY0t9/IPKZ32rgJwaIYWi3WIwfyrAqyZ1uNEXx uIgw3SAQLWV+1m9ZgeuaNhl10iSN6NtWMQHLAwhy68D91d4FkZ1eBPfux83Zdl0024ix ST8wiimW4daRSHSosCn53wgrmMbGI9QOLCjGP/PlnHAkD1ubWiwhtK25958+uM+yfPN7 qaOg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=xXnoZWstySqhBdAK38cMR7rp9KFTQbEUk0hjtVhFjWM=; b=eVQW+CttJOGEu1hs9uaDgninD4K2HmVd1aStRT8wzeGuxhdjJ8YC5QZlPG6k6E5SRE qeOKCDOYYc3iwF1HCjf4yZTFuwxIeI/hrBPBhTiKBI3ZXUieg/SqFZL67c6aOByJTEDb YsqFk0wTEhX7b9pMyEEOt2CmAK/r62ahsCKX40WJdjVMaSu/FHTTGmCLfHXcO7s4CkPk jeqwf3/mq5lY29/bCt8xgXzjsBvczp9LvBcmxORrkT37avFLMf5cpTO5gqZCdyeUHeE6 pYgO8tdkx3f5VklCHFYnGQ/rksbAT50T2cJHC+ki+1XhZhlPJY4Qw/JOnB/Cg8bVwUEO n6CQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532vOSpvrIUvg8dMxjROePk5xc03F8pMe4q3Byf4bAs6iT07sjnP 1wjxgCId/gaSV30JfzbkECj+5cFyFnK80w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyd+tEOwjNMFepJqc6T0vgR+/tASMxK6jGxn3IpYSFL26IU1NiZO8ROy2+ZqYH2/78tkEr1Sw==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:c209:: with SMTP id e9mr13399839pjt.104.1619038241141; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 13:50:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id 186sm159268pfe.212.2021. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 21 Apr 2021 13:50:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: hampering progress
To: Michael Thomas <>,
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 08:50:36 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 20:50:45 -0000

On 22-Apr-21 06:35, Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 4/21/21 10:56 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
>> Bottom line: Anyone who wants to promote an idea within IETF has to 
>> find some way of building consensus around that idea.   And any time 
>> there's inertia opposing that idea, building that consensus isn't 
>> likely to be easy, even if it's a very good idea.    It's still the 
>> job of the proponents of that idea to try to build consensus; nobody 
>> else is going to do it for them.
> How can you "build consensus" when you aren't allowed to even talk about 
> it? I don't go to meetings. I don't want to go to meetings. Does that 
> mean I am excluded from "building consensus"? 

No, but (coupled with the move to on-line meetings with all their
sociological disadvantages) it really makes it much, much harder.

> Are there other ways to 
> "build consensus" that I'm not aware of? I'm not even trying to "build 
> consensus", per se. I'm just trying to get people to consider whether an 
> alternative might be better and if not, why not.

Traditionally this list right here is where you would do that. Or if you
scope it as a Transport Area problem, ("A mailing list
for discussions on topics pertinent to the IETF Transport and Services
Area (TSV)").

> Does that "hamper progress"? Especially after about a half dozen 
> messages and less than 24 hours?

As I said, it seemed a bit abrupt but it is within a WG Chair's remit.
> But this list doesn't seem to be the answer because it's mostly about 
> ietf process and the right technical people are definitionally going to 
> be hit and miss.

That is indeed this list's current problem; hence, tsv-area might be
a better bet.