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 01:44 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 6D3721200F3; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 17:44:34 -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 LBFkwWeieExV; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 17:44:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-il1-x136.google.com (mail-il1-x136.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::136]) (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 196F01200D8; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 17:44:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-il1-x136.google.com with SMTP id f10so3104660ils.8; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 17:44:32 -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=jdKjfnF3dIG7PZWeDTkRuJrQpPeB76aDmdjkFKWiDps=; b=ZH6CF70u3DbsZBVa8I6xhyffo9qeRQTgnao01A5soZr0g1MwH/nT992pfB39nhXRTQ /5XsYV1T092j63PyS4gI4L9Uuryol/YEZUnAwsiuokS2cbeBiZ+ylacMXZeaibcT2Msr xEbVHZIqdkYFkVcNPbu99TkZaEuCOWp3GNFOxsp7ErhNQ6Okrfh5oeid93rZCReqUylL ITITonoWjAcFmzx4xMD3zingMCe35FiyQ55JJmjq00bhOyAbJ64WA0RaZlPuXEU1C9ij vaOoqml3wQM02/G3cQ+XUbPbI5i6kCLyKaliKYXmJi8ku+mFX8MEMZnNZSjDp925MfVC ueww==
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=jdKjfnF3dIG7PZWeDTkRuJrQpPeB76aDmdjkFKWiDps=; b=GgR+1cWIfA/9N+udwTo3WkflgX0hQuf0EIepxIJvhTO5Wsb2ouiw8Tle7RIJZq8vZA p+C1YTe8iCnP55kc4117dRxJJqsW8xJKPSdiAOYO51ScX46YMwBZVUI3iLQqujhfXrlA r8N3aRhfin5g2iD4VAoQMcW/io3k3GI3jkMFD+jnJTqTFZJA6m10VlX2ZyV6yXsfsaSu OTIoC1JWQvjjf/wb/O/s8GeF7zlU7Q2fWQuSo8EScK0EZfEgARFAlTGmKMgXZNN5ffvj M0iooyn+vP4jgjdVt+OWFLjpjZPtgkpCHQcUmJhBY+0bKBjHs7qWosp5N/8U/4yhlB6q I1jg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWlS7OoI/vWj01IaziSeJpMu+JnJeMRirWW9gYFOT7ytEzPdYi/ qrZ9snsBQofZ70deVZizDr/OVOwU6IziSz2BWLA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzp7fHHtaZOnTL7aLFgtaZSfq1DC3ZfKq8MU3jXr+a81gvdixVQf8a6AiCAUTammUjCiIlcEdiyqL02vZn8N7U=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:1553:: with SMTP id v80mr6060864ilk.49.1579916671427; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 17:44:31 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAChr6Sy5-ejdjw5zgZgiF1hSyuiAErmas-dbWFmx1b+1vftT1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBOMVYpEYaEUzYsa0ApDfGtA6oD5P67A40=HQVBN+yTuKQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBOMVYpEYaEUzYsa0ApDfGtA6oD5P67A40=HQVBN+yTuKQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 17:44:20 -0800
Message-ID: <CAChr6Sz7vihWaoeG8H11JzQ5YqrbYLPLneuY3PD4syMYEaKQ4w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f9aa9e059ced0381"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/-hKbYkQyu-o-r5Pegm5tP0e4oyE>
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 01:44:35 -0000

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 5:18 PM Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 4:56 PM Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Without any judgement, I wondered how this document relates to the IESG's
>> discuss criteria.[0]
>>
>> In particular, this part: "Does this document represent an end run around
>> the IETF's working groups or its procedures?"
>>
>> How does this document relate to this IESG procedure?
>>
>
> It would preclude the IESG from publishing non-consensus documents, which
> seems like a chance in procedure.
>

OK, I see. I support this change. They can always allow it on the other
streams, as detailed below.



> Would publishing a dissenting document on the independent stream
>> constitute such an "end run"?
>>
>
> I don't see how that relates to this document given that independent
> stream documents are by definition not in the IETF stream and therefore are
> not subject to IESG discusses. See
> https://tools.ietf.org/rfcmarkup?doc=5742 for more on this.
>

Maybe I'm confused about this, or shouldn't have used the term "discuss
criteria" (though [0] contained the term, as well as the section on
"Document Classes Reviewed by the IESG"). However, there are a bunch of
ways for the IESG to block publication of IRTF or Independent Stream
documents given in RFC 5742.

thanks,
Rob

[0] https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/iesg-discuss-criteria/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email