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

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Sat, 25 January 2020 15:41 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 1882A12003E for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 07:41:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.635
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.635 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_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS=3.335, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 GFEmVwlQXNiN for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 07:41:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (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 E77B8120013 for <last-call@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 07:41:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 484gGj66pgz6GF0g; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 07:41:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1579966893; bh=GlzNA19wz0vq3Sr2iPS7uLBJitNSPjo3cxjnK57Ce6U=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Ky7x0tD2BoKYh8imAUfTOV6JuQUCJkYNPn/pLbesEZrm8gad70kVdyvLVgsD2Mta7 prGPuJrBiPkxCLBBXqMnEchRLc3jURdoSiPR8RaF8kDtPXKJPyQHLYZttWxSKQ8UYc i+KDkJpy2HBJb5UPGN8dANISiqJA2RXJXzCvq8aQ=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 484gGj24Khz6GD4j; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 07:41:33 -0800 (PST)
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, last-call@ietf.org
Cc: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
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> <CAChr6SyNTsz9uZNiN16OHLj6e=Xhcn1A8pr105Of+y_Jw8HSFw@mail.gmail.com> <994c4462-ef24-6d46-3bec-8aa5e14b9f78@joelhalpern.com> <74CB9B39-6D18-45CA-AAF7-96D4748C6646@vigilsec.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <7f253bfc-1e18-1a3d-4d43-d464b50ad8b8@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2020 10:41:29 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <74CB9B39-6D18-45CA-AAF7-96D4748C6646@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/6IGaeQ6e_gaLtibntLsh76V6YJw>
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 15:41:35 -0000

Why do you think a new IESG statement is better than an RFC.  The only 
difference I can see is that it leaves the IESG an out.  Which seems to 
me to be the wrong answer.  This issue ought not, it seems to me, be one 
of IESG judgment.

Yours,
Joel

On 1/25/2020 10:27 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
> Joel and EKR:
>>
>>  this document deliberately addresses a very narrow issue that while 
>> admittedly rare has come up a few times.
> 
> In 2007, the IESG published this statement: 
> https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/area-director-sponsoring-documents/
> 
> In this statement, the IESG says that it will not approve any document 
> without an IETF Last Call.  See the first paragraph of Section 4.
> 
> I suggest a better way forward would be to post an updated IESG 
> statement that requires consensus as well.
> 
> Russ
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email