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

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Sat, 25 January 2020 01:18 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 134161200F3 for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 17:18:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 4a0rml9nd_hB for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 17:18:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x233.google.com (mail-lj1-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::233]) (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 35E8412001B for <last-call@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 17:18:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x233.google.com with SMTP id o11so4679193ljc.6 for <last-call@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 17:18:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=8R1s5WEknvYBrAq3JreJhnxkC0pJ7TSdamSHcwIqYmA=; b=veq1AWnAY/cGSNgb9QMkB/gfoOA6YDTBrOvPMG7EAgz1bn39ubW8v2tKwRwaeTh4A2 6Mn3brN9gdUFCgRKgO8bLOoHm3iWL3JhjQKiuD/VJw+km4B+Ew4737YxpHJAREPxpvYk kl94R/9us1gkQDrULPFJ9FKcjTupduS4xDRm1t1c07XZ6teNKGIf6e0ykeNC53axuyA2 dtVQwvYOCUP/qfNgZVddzx8Ff5hedNfyRuf1gGozwyWOPsNywHcud0t1XN/m9yralda2 CA+luQvCIDHCWdBzXuNtRN6rusJwZlSQeugQ4SRvgm8fuT00RZJUoHWjjyBihVWswc1o QlVg==
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=8R1s5WEknvYBrAq3JreJhnxkC0pJ7TSdamSHcwIqYmA=; b=uKfcHQ+eZ2DaQ2/dDuIYFulYQ3FN4OPfYrFmKJrDXOKF4mTAvcDeVhlVmjFHKz4Hs0 S0FRFNGtzXwxqUL5zaXHTYHac8NsRu6Jc/IC6fHAiU+KVEnDo2WHvKCJjUgw5E2+iRBH QiuVUSFyZ7KaieE2GLA8aMnSTnj5bFB4HMvChbUssdRjjQfJcmc8IVStdEae4KM7BMtP HVaDDUyuMjT0GrBS/H/beLjlaQnkkfoc8d0y9k2DpFPAzbD+eiFck0ELKzEOi7plcGPy rARduirXKJpukjKKHo548CQMus5enUQMpErrzF2plWaoQmV0fehOYcqovl10c8fOXMUN xb2w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVH7krbnzLVoK2HwqE7xTGTH7/4D56JtfUUH0HdIZnCHJOzjcv1 vy5ZU8Bs+Vxkldtd4ZpuK2cbhvIICQPiiPjhNepxDw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyO3Pc3eWVJApxCfNkgV7nK8mJkC0fL8sYJPrtvtZT/XmUuh2aeifXkVVYtaSu7XDQjqNJ5ulWdc8CUXLz5opk=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8797:: with SMTP id n23mr3553930lji.176.1579915092369; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 17:18:12 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAChr6Sy5-ejdjw5zgZgiF1hSyuiAErmas-dbWFmx1b+1vftT1Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAChr6Sy5-ejdjw5zgZgiF1hSyuiAErmas-dbWFmx1b+1vftT1Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 17:17:36 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBOMVYpEYaEUzYsa0ApDfGtA6oD5P67A40=HQVBN+yTuKQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Cc: draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000db3bc8059ceca507"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/Fa-OTwNo7RQH-54Cb8ArFrt0L7k>
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 01:18:17 -0000

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.


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.

-Ekr


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email