IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: To "lose the argument in the WG"

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Mon, 20 February 2017 16:15 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
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 61F7E1296CF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 08:15:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 pQEfytbc7mvL for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 08:15:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) (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 EF3BB1296DB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 08:15:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.189] (cpe-172-250-240-132.socal.res.rr.com [172.250.240.132]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v1KGEPrX003146 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 20 Feb 2017 08:14:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: To "lose the argument in the WG"
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, John Leslie <john@jlc.net>, dcrocker@bbiw.net, ietf@ietf.org
References: <66A86016-0382-4B2C-B9E8-30638237CB68@qti.qualcomm.com> <00e13499-7cea-a79a-7de1-dd9bad4bc530@dcrocker.net> <20170214060156.73B32639AEDF@rock.dv.isc.org> <0A3B2FF0-8F1C-430E-B4ED-DFA4CDB1FDB3@gmail.com> <0FB75520-E0BA-453C-8CF6-9F2D05B95FD6@fugue.com> <76d4aff3-760c-b258-a4e5-426ba69923f7@dcrocker.net> <84E813AE-6BD6-4EC3-A8CD-8AB24C9857D2@qti.qualcomm.com> <20170215025055.GW10525@verdi> <6.2.5.6.2.20170218010720.0b845c18@elandnews.com> <AB7BB4019CE95D16CA7B0B8D@PSB>
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <eb804059-710f-0336-8a1d-0e97f768a8e6@isi.edu>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 08:14:24 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AB7BB4019CE95D16CA7B0B8D@PSB>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/sfReiVBKt4P8kFfKg-oiT_o5cZY>
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 16:15:09 -0000


On 2/18/2017 7:26 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> any attempt to dismiss the concerns on the
> grounds of "you should have participated more and earlier" are
> not only abusive but pose a danger to the IETF.
+1

It's very easy for large organizations to perform DDOS attacks to push
through ideas that the rest of us have insufficient resources to address.

We need to not prevent that later feedback, even when it's raised early
inside the WG. IMO, an RFC is a result of *community* consensus, and WG
consensus should never supercede that.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email