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 Halpern Direct <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com> Sat, 25 January 2020 18:13 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh.direct@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 68DEB12006E for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 10:13:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.637
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.637 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_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, 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 MXVfGvjyj2h5 for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 10:13:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (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 2AF49120048 for <last-call@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 10:13:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 484kdx0S55z1nyQF; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 10:13:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1579976005; bh=t9ZQV6Beheox8DcQWaXtUv41bNQSE4pP5nLlBUos2/M=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=VY3rwRUwUeu+pAchFvQ9f6rHOc5Ub2evIVLzB32dj2jQCaVv0KfnkrB2P9KDJElav K0p3bJOWBFJpCC1j/p0lb6CK31Iv6i0pq8lto/IzzkDbJ3esnl/CP7W6jW6vhYDMwX xXFIZWkHAdX+9HFpbb+Dgy97a1s/M7O6og+1dQWk=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.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 mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 484kdw1S94z1nyKk; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 10:13:24 -0800 (PST)
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Cc: last-call@ietf.org, 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> <7f253bfc-1e18-1a3d-4d43-d464b50ad8b8@joelhalpern.com> <D0512C70-CBD5-4C76-B98C-3A7FCA8F888C@vigilsec.com>
From: Joel Halpern Direct <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <8994a7fd-3b55-9bc0-e095-cd15767f83b1@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2020 13:13:23 -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: <D0512C70-CBD5-4C76-B98C-3A7FCA8F888C@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/6vn88U5p0gkYYyKtq0EyMThPpeo>
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 18:13:26 -0000

Russ, I do not see why this needs to incorporate the rest of the IESG 
statement.  For example, this says that it shall be IETF rough 
consensus.  The question of how the IESG determines rough consensus is 
not something this document asks to change or document more strictly.

I am not trying to remove IESG statements.  In this case there seems to 
be a clear community view on what is appropriate.  Updating our 
documentation (process RFCs) to reflect that rough consensus seems 
entirely appropriate.

Yours,
Joel

On 1/25/2020 12:26 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
> Joel:
> 
> It seems to me that you would need to pot other things that are in this IESG statement into the BCP that updates RFC 2026.  You are really building on top of the procedure that are required by the existing IESG statement.  For example, RFC 2026 does not require an IETF Last Call for an informational or experimental document at all.
> 
> Russ
> 
> 
>> On Jan 25, 2020, at 10:41 AM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>> -- 
>> last-call mailing list
>> last-call@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email