Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo)

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Fri, 10 July 2020 18:35 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.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 B75AE3A0813; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 11:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 HBDFRAJU6FOg; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 11:35:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-f53.google.com (mail-io1-f53.google.com [209.85.166.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E90113A080F; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 11:35:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-f53.google.com with SMTP id d18so7083201ion.0; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 11:35:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ZLMOyv3dpYt5C9TO6ujMbl6m9HWUgbMxuxtGjWCd89U=; b=ScyhzhuoI1+Blz4waAFrE+WXzF27IpxJgJ3ve/f2saPzQy6oIUe/8uwkSYBqhUhRUc CGd44ASkQtP0c6oCQzZmJCWIbVfo7ipuopmFO4NnLmDFP+DPPTUhzyWGXEYA75rmc835 oalHxYizIewdzJzaa5oHks9F4NN3EGOwXW0W7sMI93rRId5xulAdRXPk3cNxH0HQ4xLT BoRz8spr3hbQsbBaizkrFwhwNATeN2ySFPza6PRiZEA0Y9byt+d9T+P+jyqBTVedoVE6 itGh3Wn+FzYFqUVWWG5+vwtjPYL7OFPDDWraa+zeGrjQzXfFRk8vbcEQ5LvSJiEOEsf9 1Sgw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532340hyioMvcj11YQj8DEZfNJBPKYiNJn1gMFy9+kI1ZJw/w4U7 S87Pe5+sYTMy1Met/fT3lhdow7fnScLw25a1O5d/cgWJ
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxyfOslIg5llicn/wp8byZoWza+N+lfNQJu4jVwRVLoA0nlTMj2Jj19efjwFQvcXI4hil0YB67o3DT86e6wHV4=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:7419:: with SMTP id o25mr24372731jac.46.1594406104726; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 11:35:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <159318840162.4951.12569119165623562334@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20200627023025.0b145350@elandnews.com> <5C58F041-9991-49DA-98B6-6700499DFBC9@cooperw.in> <6.2.5.6.2.20200709132444.098ec410@elandnews.com> <CALaySJJbNHu=ktzeUX+k5Rj2bt2UQkx262mvD7wHLzEVXw3VxQ@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20200710102806.0b084a90@elandnews.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20200710102806.0b084a90@elandnews.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 14:34:51 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJJwTLKgcEyWwmhPin3sX1C9kAMdj+ukMi2wfdAh399m7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo)
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/q6tfS815jT331p_z_p2axM9MYlQ>
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: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 18:35:08 -0000

> I just saw the message at
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/O9r8TOGOY5KMawJMFw9e6YdXqdM/
> I raised an issue about the milestones with the IESG.  That is a
> requirement, as specified in Section 2.2 of RFC 2418.  In my opinion,
> the action taken by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is
> not compliant with RFC 2418 (BCP 25).  It is very unfortunate that
> the action was taken while the proposed charter was being discussed.

The issue, as I understand it, is that the working group was formally
chartered before any milestones were specified.  Is that correct?

> I doubt that there anything except for an
> appeal could change that.  May I ask for 48 hours to take a decision
> about that?

RFC 2026 (BCP 9), Section 6.5.4:
   All appeals must be initiated within two months of the public
   knowledge of the action or decision to be challenged.

Barry