IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational-02.txt> (IETF Stream Documents Require IETF Rough Consensus) to Best Current Practice

Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> Sat, 25 January 2020 03:01 UTC

Return-Path: <sayrer@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 102471207FD for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 19:01:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 ld75Puaf6C1e for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 19:01:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io1-xd44.google.com (mail-io1-xd44.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d44]) (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 CADC01200F3 for <last-call@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 19:01:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io1-xd44.google.com with SMTP id z193so4076923iof.1 for <last-call@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 19:01:47 -0800 (PST)
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=ChrhF5GYmdM7xFfwCQpGw9tRELarPDFaVgfu3WB7zZY=; b=BbAFK1BWTGa43WLNEsCZgaNgsT2Pq4E7pppozWsu0Y5QSgXbsNFxpqfCf/XnzK1baS 4UeKQcOIuXfSn00Snu2U8JRoO9UpcVF8vtElgmSLUWoh8To89WPz7eg24VtNuz4G+7Jc B9fi2rxQg/ySeRSzoJMMQe2i/RElERvO5//iYkgJ6yLK4Mf6wBxV10P6CyjbicJMwJNu DWrb4bUnGlP3rqNOzuIMIUP5ZxSbNi3kehlbBSxi9cswRJW/UNYBedSPbVPesbaJKr6Q LO1BD8IwZ2MCIsF/6pzOTI6hKRBwg+DsoyddocKdlZyUrKa2aF1yxVjX+kc9M6yBBcdp 5VMA==
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=ChrhF5GYmdM7xFfwCQpGw9tRELarPDFaVgfu3WB7zZY=; b=LmSi7R5Tpb8CSdStQc1hYldkZHrafLJnDG2pgMlWovs60+YUtJ0uTgt7Yi2M3AOQGg NHDUSP3TU2Ti9/3n/t2b6FMC6V4jnu4HuomOfQOi2JtKg6nnypXoaRR9NiGwWcutBz1J KnLIZHN+TpZ6auX9GWr95jVmZYDaIRQarDXEsq3PWypN5p1JIcnRXXeyqTkg1LyWsNvG JGPLQR4hfP9dJKAx6CyS0cV1bU79NAcrYpu0ZzxQkoNeboXxiJ4T6WV6fghwa/ITGckL yW3XkCBrJMY4OELPkaRL1SOpMJvbLLawzg2ikGU5B1fww096HlU+x1gTROAkEP6ufgCT rUZQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVlRjUNWU5+/Sy1vt1sMQCPIeIHhPMQ5Yj24zUvWELO847HxGbM bfJq3Im0hfTzXKVtBViXniK1I/s8CrDzJRM+tvQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwVteSgXembZbJpHsyy3EH63sxkpPcUiW3+SJfPqfnuQNkOiuk/9mjFJW8qj4SQ3qM3HgOP/o++/8UC7uISg2E=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:2b41:: with SMTP id r62mr4430771ior.189.1579921306965; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 19:01:46 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAChr6Sy5-ejdjw5zgZgiF1hSyuiAErmas-dbWFmx1b+1vftT1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBOMVYpEYaEUzYsa0ApDfGtA6oD5P67A40=HQVBN+yTuKQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAChr6Sz7vihWaoeG8H11JzQ5YqrbYLPLneuY3PD4syMYEaKQ4w@mail.gmail.com> <99d34ee9-8ea6-a77f-39fc-f1889a050358@joelhalpern.com> <CAChr6SwHd2=Qf2SSbQeKs1CS_c1UuBqPEtO_x4MmF71iv0zE9Q@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMdonehuZ3re4UnGY2_B6A2sOBqkoE+m4SfBa8N3vYEhg@mail.gmail.com> <CAChr6Sw1LSXj=L2WAu=R1QfBi4UFDXC5Z6EODqwJ6-z9o5Z5vw@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBPBhGZDxnh2p=trL8yHveBiMsy38+-G_7oQu_eR+45d5w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBPBhGZDxnh2p=trL8yHveBiMsy38+-G_7oQu_eR+45d5w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 19:01:35 -0800
Message-ID: <CAChr6SyNTsz9uZNiN16OHLj6e=Xhcn1A8pr105Of+y_Jw8HSFw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, last-call@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000046695a059cee18cd"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/-6MPYvTLjm4TjEIFwO65PmxACIY>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational-02.txt> (IETF Stream Documents Require IETF Rough Consensus) to Best Current Practice
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2020 03:01:50 -0000

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 6:40 PM Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:

>
> Well, I've red 5742, and I don't see what you are getting it. I would
> suggest you make your point explicitly.
>

Well, it doesn't appear that you (as a document author) had read
https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/iesg-discuss-criteria/

since you used RFC 5742 as an objection, although it in fact details some
of the "iesg-discuss-criteria" procedures you said didn't exist. You've
also said RFC 5742 is irrelevant, and yet it also updates 2026 in
similar cases, so I suggest taking a closer look.

I think the name "RFC" is what matters to most submitters, and the stream
less so. I also don't think a club of 50-100 people who decide what's
allowed to be published (based on how they feel) is very healthy. That's
why I'd suggest actually considering policy around documents that fail to
achieve consensus. Where are these "Informational or Experimental RFCs to
be published without IETF rough consensus" going to go? Should the IESG
recommend them for the independent stream? Or would they be an "end-run"?

What are the specific recent cases this draft is seeking to address? It
might be helpful to look at recent drafts that would not qualify under this
proposed BCP.

thanks,
Rob

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email