IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Planned experiment: A new mailing list for last-call discussions

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Mon, 16 September 2019 13:14 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.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 B8D6D12083F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 06:14:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 Z6POxQZVvyt9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 06:14:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92C5F1200F1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 06:14:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4789; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1568639657; x=1569849257; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=GTqFi73WLeOvEfWiKvzy2ERjeC2E1kzsAdwDR5jsmcM=; b=mA1D9OroTpzkt19CWxSGzf0TDAkbXurescyJYqc7yKHB6m4nkAGWT+er IcZvWKaZiUVMHLoEWp9yRo5mWNzbm2dXtA7Z6BX9V4Gj4yOEFJHlT9a9m LocToJLE0H7pfcIsbtEaR/bZnePlLmwe8ufI6VzHSEY7P2zjFWY+p+AlK 8=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 488
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AEAAD+iX9d/xbLJq1mGgEBAQEBAgEBAQEHAgEBAQGBUwUBAQEBCwGBFYJCIBKES4gcYId0JYdDi1KGCoF7AgcBAQEJAwEBLwEBhD8CgxI0CQ4CAwkBAQQBAQECAQUEbYU6hUsBBAEjSwsQCwQKNAICVwaDNQGBew+sLIEyhUyEahCBNAGBUIo/gX+BEScME4JMPodPMoImBIkpjEiWeYIsgi6BE4xrhFQbjXqLH4pFmTWDEQIEBgUCFYFSOIFYMxoIGxU7KgGCQj2QSz4DkSYBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,512,1559520000"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="16865453"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 16 Sep 2019 13:14:15 +0000
Received: from [10.61.225.65] ([10.61.225.65]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x8GDEERO021838 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 16 Sep 2019 13:14:15 GMT
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <9DF2CA28-127B-4402-B986-C3247C41E05B@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_230C28D9-8A9C-48C7-9721-180E1CF5E38E"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Subject: Re: Planned experiment: A new mailing list for last-call discussions
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 15:14:13 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBNRP93+5i=k1_HOYxiRHxUQ=DmEdWr6GoOzPkBJJO5uQw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
References: <CALaySJKvdoy9MtzHMwq-Ew-EJoUs0V8t+y01FL-E5r3xdyRemQ@mail.gmail.com> <EDBBBD9628A18755F4366D0B@PSB> <CALaySJ+cR0k=HpCvf5cSN4ony9zvzVeOZc=Qqot=cQN=jJF2fA@mail.gmail.com> <E032E905-E395-46CF-8C56-C3EBB8E20C9C@gmail.com> <CABcZeBO0NbEVQ67j8ZRgKXmjT3JeLFAgnSpfMA8CqAg1dp_j5w@mail.gmail.com> <073FAB7287FB558ECCED2CE0@PSB> <CABcZeBMegPn+hJuANAz9-iqon9n6R0Tsno8ECPe0MzEabDKf2Q@mail.gmail.com> <05477d7a-6cfb-43ae-4984-3b491bfe3ef1@gmail.com> <CABcZeBMujVh9VgcVx0s35Y4qoiaBcNjbb-v9jagsKuqJmwZ2gw@mail.gmail.com> <9ab35c4e-c96c-0908-ded4-d16476aa954b@gmail.com> <CABcZeBNCgjJzkqZvHwNrGNvxQoJUqG59-q_12mYc59yWk+cT4A@mail.gmail.com> <DE65D956-705F-4F5E-A00B-2D62E493BAB6@cisco.com> <CABcZeBNRP93+5i=k1_HOYxiRHxUQ=DmEdWr6GoOzPkBJJO5uQw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.225.65, [10.61.225.65]
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/wrwXl4q0woLgqXbRcae8cMfsN0w>
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: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 13:14:20 -0000

Hi Eric,


> 
> If a point is raised during LC discussion that has not been addressed earlier, then that person is absenting him/herself from the consensus process at the time of LC.
> 
> This seems like it's painting with an unnecessarily broad brush. Consider the case where a document goes through WGLC and has strong consensus. Then an issue is raised in IETF LC on one specific aspect of the protocol and addressed by one of the authors but nobody else speaks up. That doesn't generally diminish the overall consensus for the document


Actually, I realize that someone has made my point better than I ever possibly could.  What do you think of RFC 7282 Section 6?  All I’m saying is that I’m looking at this on an issue by issue basis with regard to a given document.  To me this is exactly what cross-area review means, and that is important because WGs often have blindspots, as I am sure you would agree.

And so that’s a good reason for people to pay attention LCs for docs they participated in developing.

Eliot

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email