IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-arkko-iesg-crossarea-02.txt> (Experiences from Cross-Area Work at the IETF) to Informational RFC

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Sat, 09 February 2013 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 D481821F8886 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Feb 2013 08:32:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zrf6OccZQDwA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Feb 2013 08:32:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47AE421F8863 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Feb 2013 08:32:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-9-215.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.9.215]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r19GW880007437 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 9 Feb 2013 08:32:08 -0800
Message-ID: <51167A03.8040804@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 08:32:03 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-arkko-iesg-crossarea-02.txt> (Experiences from Cross-Area Work at the IETF) to Informational RFC
References: <004e01ce06dd$5dfaf530$19f0df90$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <004e01ce06dd$5dfaf530$19f0df90$@olddog.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Sat, 09 Feb 2013 08:32:08 -0800 (PST)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 16:32:10 -0000

On 2/9/2013 7:51 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> 3. It is not clear what it would mean to have IETF consensus on this
>     document. Would it mean that the IETF agrees that this is the
>     author's opinion?


This sort of document is probably better as an Independent submission, 
directly to the RFC Editor.

I think documents like this can be quite valuable.  And having IETF 
comment, such as your note, is a good thing.

But as you note, seeking any sort of IETF consensus about a statement of 
personal perspective does not make much sense.  Absent trying to make it 
an official IETF perspective, the debate and probable nit-picking, which 
accompanies an effort to get IETF consensus, actually would likely be 
counter-producive.

d/
-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email