Re: I-D Action: draft-rsalz-termlimits-00.txt

John C Klensin <> Wed, 20 October 2021 20:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A17C73A116A for <>; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 13:58:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PRGzJ5Bs35df for <>; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 13:58:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E80AF3A1167 for <>; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 13:58:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=PSB) by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1mdIfW-00059e-RN; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 16:58:38 -0400
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 16:58:32 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Brian E Carpenter <>, IETF discussion list <>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-rsalz-termlimits-00.txt
Message-ID: <F8261F852DE39CD39B319EC2@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <56F811BE6546B57096E171B6@PSB> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
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, 20 Oct 2021 20:58:45 -0000

--On Thursday, October 21, 2021 09:34 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
<> wrote:

> Well, I am not convinced. *Guidance* to NomCom along these
> lines would be a fine idea, but a firm rule, IMHO, would
> over-constrain an already constrained solution.

To be clear, while I am trying to see the other side of the
argument and want to try to avoid ones I consider largely
spurious or even dangerous (such as "positions are too hard to
fill"), I share your concern about a firm rule.

As suggested earlier, have a look at draft-klensin-nomcom-term,
which is all about guidance and treating separate issues
separately.  Whether the two-step process it proposes would
really clarify things, eliminate another problem people have
expressed concern about (recently, not 15+ years ago), and be
worth the effort is, I think, a separate discussion.

I need to consult with Spencer before putting a new version up,
but you can probably assume it is in the pipe.