Re: letters from Ted & Alissa

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Wed, 03 July 2019 20:51 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 AEC4112069A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 13:51:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.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 oNlhS-aTDLXc for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 13:51:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cheetah.birch.relay.mailchannels.net (cheetah.birch.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.209.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AAEB120672 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 13:51:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0FE16A1ED8; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 20:51:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a48.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-1-102.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.1.102]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 267036A1E4F; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 20:51:19 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a48.g.dreamhost.com ([TEMPUNAVAIL]. [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/5.17.3); Wed, 03 Jul 2019 20:51:19 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Share-Lettuce: 187901eb5ba57507_1562187079467_3258215182
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1562187079467:474774348
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1562187079467
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a48.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a48.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 088A27EFD9; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 13:51:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; s= cryptonector.com; bh=VBEDRAP14aftvr5JE1cbZbSC97A=; b=YUyIRum+sTs uWj1WiMV7mp4l1hc1ruHek0esZoCIwS2HmsGToXfordcQwCUqAxNq2vgbQAPsvBt zZaHYBcBHHUDSYQu7hDNrVV97tXOJHS27DPdHe1WE60ACH95aFFboyy9jbhlmRWf wE4oH7xv2ujKJ+pmVuMrOZBR97K6e+i0=
Received: from localhost (unknown [24.28.108.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a48.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B54747EFD0; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 13:51:12 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2019 15:51:10 -0500
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a48
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: letters from Ted & Alissa
Message-ID: <20190703205108.GD3508@localhost>
References: <CA+9kkMCi=h1W15T-rt3MAu3NHBYdEaycUPw4XhRDBVNL4k_Xrg@mail.gmail.com> <BB4BA38F-B384-46A3-866C-4A61F4C7C681@sobco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <BB4BA38F-B384-46A3-866C-4A61F4C7C681@sobco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
X-VR-OUT-STATUS: OK
X-VR-OUT-SCORE: 0
X-VR-OUT-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddrfedtgdduheeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuggftfghnshhusghstghrihgsvgdpffftgfetoffjqffuvfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpeffhffvuffkfhggtggugfgjfgesthekredttderjeenucfhrhhomheppfhitghoucghihhllhhirghmshcuoehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhmqeenucfkphepvdegrddvkedruddtkedrudekfeenucfrrghrrghmpehmohguvgepshhmthhppdhhvghloheplhhotggrlhhhohhsthdpihhnvghtpedvgedrvdekrddutdekrddukeefpdhrvghtuhhrnhdqphgrthhhpefpihgtohcuhghilhhlihgrmhhsuceonhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomheqpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhepnhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomhdpnhhrtghpthhtohepnhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/y_IH_ZVOTdkXnXkd1xJ8HkCbhyE>
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: Wed, 03 Jul 2019 20:51:30 -0000

On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 03:32:44PM -0400, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
> thanks to Ted & Alissa - these letters were (actually) helpful in clearing up some lingering questions - they 
> are somewhat ‘it was not us’ in tone but that appears to be the case.
> 
> now we need to hear from the RSOC in regards to at least two outstanding questions
> 
> 1/ why did the RSOC decide to a/ rebid the RSE contract 2 years early
>    & b/ decide to tell the world about it a further 2 years earlier
> 2/ did the RSOC consider that the move could be seen as a termination
>    notice

Sarah Banks wrote a post that explained some of this.  It was enough
that I can see how RSOC might *not* have thought that the RSE would take
early bidding the way she did.  Perhaps it was all a big failure to
communicate rather than RSOC's failure to understand that it was
essentially telling the RSE to get lost -- perhaps it was even a failure
on the RSE's part rather than RSOC's.

Now, I don't really know the full story, and was on vacation during this
entire dust-up, so before I comment further I'll have to re-read that
post by Sarah B. and any others by RSOC and IAB members.  The point of
_this_ post is that Sarah B.'s post seems to have gotten lost in the
noise.

Nico
--