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

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 20 October 2021 20:58 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 A17C73A116A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 13:58:44 -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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 PRGzJ5Bs35df for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 13:58:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E80AF3A1167 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 13:58:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) 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 <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-rsalz-termlimits-00.txt
Message-ID: <F8261F852DE39CD39B319EC2@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <f7d31a4d-344e-9a7d-7397-7984c958f340@gmail.com>
References: <163474046003.5194.1851617977740027365@ietfa.amsl.com> <2a65cc6e-3a39-d209-491f-f4ad67cca151@gmail.com> <56F811BE6546B57096E171B6@PSB> <f7d31a4d-344e-9a7d-7397-7984c958f340@gmail.com>
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-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/qS1IKRUFrQ8_UXv6I4YZHxlSZbE>
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: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 20:58:45 -0000


--On Thursday, October 21, 2021 09:34 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> 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.

    john