Re: Consultation on *revised* IETF LLC Draft Strategic Plan 2020

Jay Daley <> Sat, 06 June 2020 02:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EE4B3A0872 for <>; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 19:41:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XAbjAdPa99B5; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 19:40:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1B15F3A086E; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 19:40:59 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Jay Daley <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: Consultation on *revised* IETF LLC Draft Strategic Plan 2020
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2020 14:40:56 +1200
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
Cc: Eric Rescorla <>, ietf <>
In-Reply-To: <>
To: Stephen Farrell <>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17E262)
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: Sat, 06 Jun 2020 02:41:01 -0000

> On 6/06/2020, at 2:28 PM, Stephen Farrell <> wrote:
>> On 06/06/2020 03:14, Jay Daley wrote:
>> The only two elements of the draft strategy that I am aware of you 
>> still objecting to are
>> - the linkage to IESG/IRSG/IAB strategy; and - the participant 
>> journey
> The phrasing above indicates I've not explained my
> objections clearly I guess. I've argued that there
> really cannot be an "IESG strategy" and that the
> use of the "journey" phrase is either waffle or else
> over-reach. I don't therefore object to "the linkage
> to X" where X is a non-existent thing. (Well, other
> than it being an irritant on a purist logical basis:-)
> I do object to "the LLC will extrapolate to decide what
> that non-existent IESG strategy ought be" as I've tried
> to explain, as that is what the latest text says. (I did
> also suggest alternate wording to which I got no
> response.)

My text above was not intended to (mis)represent your position, only to summarise the areas of the strategy you object to. 

The alternate wording you provided seemed to take this in a very different direction. I will look at the “extrapolate” phrase though to see if that can be sufficiently narrowed to a set of conditions that you would be comfortable with. 

>> (Notwithstanding your initial objection to the concept of the LLC 
>> having a strategy framed this way)
> My initial objection was not to how text was framed but
> to the assumption that the LLC decide how to call consensus
> on this.

As explained in a previous message, the LLC will not be calling consensus on this strategy but will at some point decided that it’s good enough to work with. 
> I continue to see that as a problem that has not
> seen a response from the IESG.
>> It would be very helpful if you could point to those other elements 
>> of the draft strategy where the role of the IESG in calling
>> consensus needs clarification.
> Now I'm confused. I think my objections above are
> sufficient and don't see why more are needed. If you
> wanted to say that you have disregarded my objections
> and are only willing to discuss if I find more then
> saying that would be clearer;-)

No that’s not what I wanted to say - I thought your message implied there were additional issues that has not been identified. It is reassuring that you don’t have any. 

> S.
> <0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc>