IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Diversity and Inclusiveness in the IETF

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Wed, 24 February 2021 17:54 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 A21D73A0BF7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 09:54:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 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_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=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 GzPtsKq7146T for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 09:54:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1826E3A0B13 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 09:54:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F9A25C00E2; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 12:54:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 24 Feb 2021 12:54:24 -0500
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=WKVKuF81vFMOIA1NFqLZof1bnj6KPctfFTGduXXpe h8=; b=KyVA08auFXvcxe4hvSYeITsRHWrf5B/iHJGhEQSGm5/PLxszkOpjPKWaC v5quC8sM9C5FEiLy2iED25NQcjhzxYhOUqLdfbpnpS5eAo8s8SY3OIieverbeG1g CIZkRz3kt2s+V0o9d8XR7/JJ6J5C2oELPoM82Saz9iMxc9b0r3hn0W64LEt3gPTC JUW1eFH+3U0JSh0M90gt/wWD4gJi/gnDjpUFBlfcSkSwaVnki5PMHfWtXQCi53vX qJwxI5aLW9nZHCVj2u0G2H7tYdfZar27FU5cXr18IzquSDg3/CWZS7b3VRr0i9EL ZBEDM2BDMUkUYlB8tJFrTDDxIFf/Q==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:z5I2YP-GSX24DeMF6rDzLw5NqhFZwOxo_bXItsjJzqOnqPG3jkFe_A> <xme:z5I2YFLK7KnJZZk2rbxkiiWD0ZZZpS-1Z4S6YaiMX2CM6YOIMmARToXwMuvegx2ju NdJxRrkAARBKQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrkeejgddutdegucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtgfesthekredttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepmfgvihht hhcuofhoohhrvgcuoehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomh eqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhephefhuedtheefgfefgffhkeehgfeugfeiudeugeejkeef leelueeiffetfeeuudeunecukfhppedutdekrddvvddurddukedtrdduheenucevlhhush htvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmohhorhgvsehnvght fihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:z5I2YMkexgXFZZt-Ed0c0UAE7xxG0_U2BpFkH-CQQuX2sD8WhjKR5Q> <xmx:z5I2YBPFOqwdMeYAvGDMDCmjgNYua6gjJf2dctks1tggowjoCrMPNg> <xmx:z5I2YK3hxWRTSHCsqyn0gDoyaEaee7Ag8u8wrHmDhBY5-8fD6ozPWg> <xmx:0JI2YNVxvINCamvdvgZo4t8YPq4zaArpv0HNrvgMDXxFi2AQr-XgeA>
Received: from [192.168.1.90] (108-221-180-15.lightspeed.knvltn.sbcglobal.net [108.221.180.15]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 1F24124005E; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 12:54:23 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Diversity and Inclusiveness in the IETF
To: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <37eecb9b-f0eb-e21c-b162-b1f0339e4981@si6networks.com> <3c2d646d-f18d-4d88-b458-29dbd486432b@beta.fastmail.com> <AM0PR08MB371669108E9CEA561BEC9EF6FA809@AM0PR08MB3716.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <d6648437-332b-4668-a1c7-591f2c287539@dogfood.fastmail.com> <CADNypP8GKTY-Jhpb6AEfcpXOihwLap7OrrByNemGc2GNvZLeog@mail.gmail.com> <10fd9d2d-afb4-44aa-b618-fb5ce1efa69e@dogfood.fastmail.com> <c21477c8f68047cabac7aeae60a688f2@cert.org> <CAHbuEH7Qvc3AaBxbk1kXd4knS4_+Wrs3P7WNETRNNoFP-dGNCA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwgbK3HYDjSHnTN3f6hWSQCQrEjHLNn6z0JpfY7hdxaQpg@mail.gmail.com> <1ca2f81d-58ac-914e-c9d3-611ec7d261ec@network-heretics.com> <AM0PR08MB3716D06A5EAD8699EC8329AAFA9F9@AM0PR08MB3716.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <CAMm+Lwgg7PqregAMyZ0PYngfRU5H1CFayFpJPaBbkhU77L-cSw@mail.gmail.com> <AM0PR08MB3716363941789295EFDB7776FA9F9@AM0PR08MB3716.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <c1e77ab8-4798-4a01-6bc7-bd545e937ab4@network-heretics.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 12:54:22 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR08MB3716363941789295EFDB7776FA9F9@AM0PR08MB3716.eurprd08.prod.outlook.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/rReMRQGVW3atjmyKKUCtvzZYGmE>
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, 24 Feb 2021 17:54:27 -0000

On 2/24/21 12:41 PM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:

> - Our work is contribution driven.
True, but IETF does have some influence.   We're not bound to accept 
every contribution (especially if there are reservations about it), and 
we sometimes are able to impose some additional requirements on 
contributed work.   (Whether we do so wisely is a different question.)
> - Making protocols suitable for all possible deployments introduces complexity. Particularly for security protocols this is often unwanted.

Yes but it seems to me that we have a poor track record of anticipating 
what deployment is likely to look like, and also a poor track record of 
designing with some awareness of likely deployment.   (Perhaps 
especially for security protocols.) Clearly we can't perfectly predict 
the future, but some people are able to make very good educated guesses.

Keith

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email