Re: Montevideo statement
joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Wed, 09 October 2013 17:07 UTC
Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.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 EF2AD21E808F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 10:07:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K2QVoNQeM0hy for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 10:07:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0966F21E814E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 10:07:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mb-aye.corp.zynga.com ([199.48.105.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r99H7Iqi035481 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 9 Oct 2013 17:07:19 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_979229A8-227D-4A4C-9FAF-B89E0C4C6203"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
Subject: Re: Montevideo statement
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <52557E09.9010102@gondrom.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 10:07:16 -0700
Message-Id: <70658ABA-E38A-429B-A3E6-519D5009D309@bogus.com>
References: <ABCF1EB7-3437-4EC3-B0A8-0EDB2EDEA538@ietf.org> <20131007225129.GA572@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20131008213432.0c1e4b30@resistor.net> <20131009064438.GA47673@mx1.yitter.info> <525533D0.8060409@gondrom.org> <5BEDC090-F92D-47D8-A9D1-55C8011919D7@nominum.com> <52557E09.9010102@gondrom.org>
To: Tobias Gondrom <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]); Wed, 09 Oct 2013 17:07:19 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 17:07:24 -0000
On Oct 9, 2013, at 9:02 AM, Tobias Gondrom <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org> wrote: > On 09/10/13 14:14, Ted Lemon wrote: >> On Oct 9, 2013, at 6:45 AM, Tobias Gondrom <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org> >> wrote: >> >>> But I support SM's proposal that it would be good >>> to do a few days comment period for such important statements in the >>> future - if timing is not critical. There is no harm in a few days delay >>> and getting input from the community. >>> >> This is a nice theory, but the usual last call time at IETF is either two weeks or four weeks, not a few days, and that's for a good reason. I think there is no way that a statement of the type we are discussing can ever represent IETF consensus unless we go through an actual consensus call. >> >> So the real question here is, is it ever appropriate for the chair of the IAB or the chair of the IETF to sign a statement like this without getting consensus? I think that's a good question, and I don't have a strong opinion on the answer. But if the answer is that we need consensus, then we actually need to do a consensus call. >> >> The only value I see in "a few days" would be an opportunity for wordsmithing—as someone pointed out, the current statement could be read as expressing concern that secrets were leaked, rather than concern about what was done in secret, and it would have been nice if that wording could have been corrected. If that is what you were asking for, then that does make sense. >> >> (thinking out loud...) >> >> > > Yes, that is what is was thinking about. Probably wisdom of the crowds could have helped with the wordsmithing part. I imagine that's exctly the part of course that they aren't interested in once they're hashed out a high-level statement (and have general agreement between the signatories ) is more input. It seems dramatically simpler to just make the satement as individuals who put their name on something. > And in my view even some little feedback (3-7 days) is better than none. And just to be clear: with such a short comment option, the goal is just comments not to get a rough consensus. > We have a process for obtaining consensus. It takes a little while. > All the best, Tobias >
- Re: Montevideo statement Noel Chiappa
- Montevideo statement IETF Chair
- Re: Montevideo statement Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: Montevideo statement Jari Arkko
- Re: Montevideo statement Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Montevideo statement Martin Millnert
- Re: Montevideo statement Tobias Gondrom
- Re: Montevideo statement manning bill
- Re: Montevideo statement Michael Richardson
- Re: Montevideo statement Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Montevideo statement Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Montevideo statement manning bill
- Re: Montevideo statement SM
- Re: Montevideo statement Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Montevideo statement joel jaeggli
- Re: Montevideo statement Ted Lemon
- Re: Montevideo statement John C Klensin
- Re: Montevideo statement Tobias Gondrom
- Re: Montevideo statement Russ Housley
- Re: Montevideo statement joel jaeggli
- leader statements (was: Montevideo statement) Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Montevideo statement Arturo Servin
- Re: Montevideo statement SM
- Re: Montevideo statement Russ Housley
- Re: leader statements Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Montevideo statement Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: leader statements Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: leader statements Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: leader statements Brian E Carpenter
- "The core Internet institutions abandon the US Go… Carsten Bormann
- Re: leader statements Scott Brim
- Re: leader statements (was: Montevideo statement) SM
- Re: leader statements (was: Montevideo statement) Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: leader statements (was: Montevideo statement) Jari Arkko
- Re: Montevideo statement Medel v6 Ramirez
- Re: Montevideo statement Dave Crocker
- Re: leader statements manning bill
- Re: leader statements Arturo Servin
- Re: leader statements (was: Montevideo statement) manning bill
- Re: leader statements Melinda Shore
- Re: Montevideo statement Jari Arkko
- Re: Montevideo statement Ted Lemon
- Re: leader statements Carlos M. Martinez
- Re: Montevideo statement Dave Crocker
- Re: Montevideo statement Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: Montevideo statement SM
- Re: Montevideo statement Jari Arkko
- Re: "The core Internet institutions abandon the U… Jorge Amodio
- Re: "The core Internet institutions abandon the U… John Levine
- Re: leader statements Suzanne Woolf
- Re: "The core Internet institutions abandon the U… Jorge Amodio
- Re: "The core Internet institutions abandon the U… Dave Crocker
- Re: "The core Internet institutions abandon the U… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Montevideo statement Michael Richardson
- Re: Montevideo statement Jari Arkko
- Re: Montevideo statement John C Klensin
- Re: Montevideo statement Randy Bush
- Re: [IETF] Re: Montevideo statement Warren Kumari
- Re: Montevideo statement Jorge Amodio
- Re: [IETF] Re: Montevideo statement shogunx