Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

SM <> Sun, 12 August 2012 10:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FBC121F8512; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 03:01:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.572
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.572 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rSs5YKoXFN7f; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 03:01:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0F8221F8504; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 03:01:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (IDENT:sm@localhost []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q7CA0rLd020456; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 03:00:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1344765663; bh=K9bZkv9lYmAK02K9QWcOtjOKX+YZ4/Bwfb+LPZC43Fw=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=ImZCOnMazJ3ph1j4wKGDinzEkTTUAWhsR/rIe5ICNHY89vbPp2cNNWSDL8tK0tiz/ EfqhFkxRE9YIqJIr+CLPWT2NkU4Dgh8Oc6Ff1hdUeegYTu0oUl8hRtXdMxr/WRW2+7 2LDoG0Ku1VmMp2a1maS9ho6jQSeTMfj1STvCjJYM=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1344765663;; bh=K9bZkv9lYmAK02K9QWcOtjOKX+YZ4/Bwfb+LPZC43Fw=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=peeNAfyPiyuu48830QJGP33abXSRDBFrgUsKJncjKvXYnakPVzgo/rhsiMT4Pcv5i fLgzkU2tJgIuKv/jlCAshVSkzkzrYtPuidG8XHJU8iZK3KoivUxgGa/qeYPv97QRD4 7zxIwwQuEnJN5zkob7X6ZNfE0cBnb3fAeXtDh2PM=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 02:57:14 -0700
To: Glen Zorn <>
From: SM <>
Subject: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
In-Reply-To: <1344752002.8891.44.camel@gwz-laptop>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <1344752002.8891.44.camel@gwz-laptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====================_928720128==_"
Cc: IAB <>, IETF <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 10:01:11 -0000

Hi Glen,
At 23:13 11-08-2012, Glen Zorn wrote:
>Sorry, I don't get your point.  The referenced RFC says

It was the Spring of 1995.  The place was known as Danvers.  That 
meeting is remembered because of the Danvers Doctrine.

>Presumably, the IAB & IESG came to this concern through consensus 
>and the document expresses the consensus (along with the rather 
>typical sense of exaggerated self-


>of those bodies.  It pointedly does not claim to represent the 
>opinion of the entire IETF, but neither does the document under 
>discussion (unless the royal usage of "we" is intended) and that's 
>how it should be.

Over the years the IAB and IETF have expressed a joint opinion on an 
issue through a RFC.    That RFC is one of the significant ones as it 
dealt with the question of "export" grade security which was on the 
political agenda of the day.  Nowadays the IETF uses BCPs to express 
IETF Consensus.