IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: On diversity in the NomCom

Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> Thu, 16 July 2020 07:33 UTC

Return-Path: <sayrer@gmail.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 62D1D3A1050 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 00:33:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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=gmail.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 ZvtQpPG4M1Ku for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 00:33:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x136.google.com (mail-il1-x136.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::136]) (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 21C9C3A1055 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 00:33:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x136.google.com with SMTP id e18so4221634ilr.7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 00:33:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Glw7+jUDtvR0zJbN1zC/lr5/Cu1PvvcDGrJw0KaUKJA=; b=rDi7rWG4pzvvPnqFZIEBDf5Q3RbosGsyhVHuyPL68lL1oxSxbUXzBRV7iG3Ju66wVN EL1GB8527ou31rc/vhWP5fiPN1GMZtksG1p8PwqzUhB1AoquMxVJfZX96GdK0VZ7Rske ZdM/1IE0l7qkn2EcXhw7MQzyGj5YxmBhGinRrXW5YkJmD6/fMkKhppsQCHlsW99TWjKu V0xEiWVKG0IDs1JbhvejFgC4JRxnwnYPu3xnUFvTQb307JM73soe3e6FjIUUS1YbGZoU sQ/4YDKpDDlwIjLYd2a99u2MNCmgb+vEaOqt2p3+sIEbusz+sJJpzmjXBgMd+5Dcc5nf f4tQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Glw7+jUDtvR0zJbN1zC/lr5/Cu1PvvcDGrJw0KaUKJA=; b=L2w9f2VaOHjLp6Zl3yphLr0R9DfG5WzWbpGoUNRqBofdTN0JYCxCO4tPPfvR80AEIj MNPeRvvtBwfnPxIc6iT9jQ5mh9z6HEpr8Lzml0zdeSMeqyskhETGiPx4Xj4/tj+iQxHO dKQCKlEdUs70RMtb5hh2EB/nV9CCenhxsYh7dBVhj2EhSPKC/XgRw29DWW5OpvbdVyDO /FdN7uYNIxN515ACT+W/3wj+ce2tmTeyVKOqNufY/u3AanU8wWR5ws0QFShCS2w1zh51 w1+KV/dYzFGZ3YK1gY1HxCB694BpqPP2nQAVy333OR/nFMqjjaO1MbF10Osdbpm6iQyZ YnXw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532K9FFNhvhie/vKpuy34TiupZ6OLqrhjQRBdj2DyQCBEQqMnrG7 W8DCTtPiD9QbbtgCEBM2zxlN3DR2WX2NoUjQh3k=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwirD2eT6rsCU7tv/Ay55g8wIFpEQuZTIlrWB4Xav7A7hW/Y2r6KTA1/zeptGuR90zqBPE2ne+fjNHzA4yP+cg=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:de42:: with SMTP id e2mr3208182ilr.189.1594884817364; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 00:33:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <7429392e-a411-4c40-8fa9-f03de558b7ca@dogfood.fastmail.com> <d3187a20-76a8-0ef9-d32f-6b8e400a0d30@gmail.com> <ee517835-1ad4-e2c0-a33b-e194f7c37f95@gmail.com> <CAChr6SxXwKwwtXxL+9f2Zz8kufpnOLmHHkK-dY6PC+k9mNE4+w@mail.gmail.com> <16772aec-9ead-3658-16c8-dfbcdfa19edc@gmail.com> <CAChr6Sy+a=ziSH-D8Q+wQLDA6rEXg2SfiE+4V7trr2z20kQs9Q@mail.gmail.com> <2D8F8708458BF390168BD5EC@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <2D8F8708458BF390168BD5EC@PSB>
From: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 00:33:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CAChr6SyWPJsAYcU9ZVC931ZmxXGELHPQ_m5uqe2gBZncs7rQWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: On diversity in the NomCom
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ff29b105aa8a0e2c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/tHN7Ai57Gh--8OG2beiGa9UK7EA>
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: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 07:33:43 -0000

On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 8:01 PM John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:

>
> Of course, the relatively new rules requiring IETF consensus for
> Informational and Experimental documents in the IETF stream take
> us in exactly the opposite direction.
>
> I also note that many other SDOs publish informative,
> non-standard, documents in the form of technical reports
>

Yes, and when I have to read anything that is not a Standards Track RFC, I
just groan.

The IETF is not perfect, but Internet Standard documents are generally
clear.

That said, Internet Draft links are now sufficiently stable, making many
kinds of RFCs unnecessary.


But we are getting fairly far from the "diversity" topic and the
> Nomcom.
>

The argument was that stuffing the NomCom was ok, because of "resources"
that might be withdrawn.

My reaction was something like "ooh, promise?". I don't feel good about a
bunch of telecom companies bent on hobbling encryption.

thanks,
Rob

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email