IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Status of this memo

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Tue, 27 April 2021 15:34 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.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 EAF203A1148 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 08:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.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 V0QNeeiCKAEu for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 08:34:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3E9A3A119A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 08:34:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0A20168E; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 11:34:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 27 Apr 2021 11:34:32 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=539xqnOrMwfdWG5F2fYpWWTCvEayGkJ9+UihUDBpK uc=; b=HD7aEJL/GQndbZLaALMe4EyB2G+2snY3aky0CqdQyMITy13i5SwXZmlre 3A0dEpDuRZzgkoCphgby04K9uGEb7ODWHmtFIOz7DxvwtIwEstFvjYvEAICeIIhk kVaU8q2xE9IlMr8eEwpQAxzlW5T4h1i8zoKacegvZoL8Jg+LJ0xg4xWjRDx1PRhN N/+ts1EfvvOd3BdBCVDu9e7T4EoEb+o7UTbfiYizLpdk0SbVFAtxdRevf3vpH/XV JBhAIJKCGRkuOOZHhmOR8WNl2cuNnz4ARfmOCtJU2AXoKBE7DneLh6Xi17vQkeLE tlwNiSsGD05BAs9CzMSRwn8jq5rPg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:CC-IYHizE8kKBBjET1yeowgrfUfH4hz5FJnnqRExOWj_PUqs58pZaw> <xme:CC-IYEBWNxsPsOcz1TJDECL3dzTl4viY0rztySwAxLc90oeEMhcEpGQeUAp23a5_M 3j5a_m1_Nde0w>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrvddvtddgledvucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtgfesthekredttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepmfgvihht hhcuofhoohhrvgcuoehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomh eqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhephefhuedtheefgfefgffhkeehgfeugfeiudeugeejkeef leelueeiffetfeeuudeunecukfhppeejfedruddufedrudeiledriedunecuvehluhhsth gvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhoohhrvgesnhgvthif ohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:CC-IYHGRbUih6Y_Z9rJEwD3TjAThKi5sy69UinQzapiHdy9qZQ0aPg> <xmx:CC-IYETfYZ7b6ZbLy6mTTe3lqpqVwu0DSyzG1PID9_MldfVSuxRtDg> <xmx:CC-IYEzsNmW2MF22DisIebTrEQmjLjIZLdFQMJ-Ilgs4O6cI2FDDxQ> <xmx:CC-IYD8VqiwiqrU2djqcIy8Ujpuc_IuYDBYu_9qEZyNisu1-b30KSw>
Received: from [192.168.30.202] (c-73-113-169-61.hsd1.tn.comcast.net [73.113.169.61]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 11:34:31 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Status of this memo
To: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <376f83f0-89a3-cd0e-1792-c8434bd8a5d2@gmail.com> <9ACE59FA-30B6-475A-AF6B-4B874E4A2788@eggert.org> <1804294246.5904.1619512137931@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <D653D3B2-7666-409A-B856-2A4B1BA958CA@eggert.org> <3DBB64B1-40B8-4BC3-B66C-7F9B7F395874@akamai.com> <b5210c71-9500-3dba-05d2-4ae1c6ad16e9@network-heretics.com> <CAA=duU1VJs2vCE=uCF=fXO7FNedn9yPAaZWTgcaAiHTexA8uWA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <d0fe9cb6-4a75-4d24-5c9c-15e239ccf5c3@network-heretics.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 11:34:31 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAA=duU1VJs2vCE=uCF=fXO7FNedn9yPAaZWTgcaAiHTexA8uWA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/mrgAMVht2aaN7QqnLVZ7pDL0V4c>
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, 27 Apr 2021 15:34:46 -0000

On 4/27/21 11:06 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:

> I disagree. WGs have charters, which result in RFCs. During that 
> process, they have consensus-based working drafts that are refined to 
> meet their charter goals. That's an "adopted" draft. But it doesn't 
> have to be based on a single individual draft, a working draft can be 
> the result of merging earlier individual drafts, or can even originate 
> as a WG draft without a preceding individual draft or drafts. But yes, 
> working drafts do reflect WG consensus, and they have formal standing 
> as such.

emphatically disagree, and as said earlier I believe it is a Bad Idea to 
give such draft more status than they deserve.

Keith

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email