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 20:10 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 8DAD612004C for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 12:10:16 -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 OTfIEoCChOaI for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 12:10:15 -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 5C25012001E for <last-call@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 12:10:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 484nDl2Dk2z1nyTB; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 12:10:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1579983015; bh=LV2UQYPsrF/5rc22nw14GWDFNXdaQdIM70GcaUP2QIk=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=CeVPacIrbkRmXSMqdrDdvyOdYU05jFGlPe7G8A/WkBO39Ay2WoAaBqe8EBzv1iiph pQs+qmyRrIO4+cNGFrK97biBHLFx0T9sHwdVIwx4bIbr2XWqUsg8dKNX7SI4JREgAb kRkahkQ+oiVetZ8S3rQL7tWqhtCkkx/Lg+zN8ndk=
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 484nDk0cP8z1nyRJ; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 12:10:13 -0800 (PST)
To: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Cc: last-call@ietf.org, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
References: <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> <CAChr6Sy80-74g4cgKESwmdn3WSNjU_2XsjkChH9_8-ELnytC_Q@mail.gmail.com> <20200125184550.GF77560@kduck.mit.edu> <CAChr6SzXFPbcPL++gftey9T_nCVBds+Sb1Z4MpkC2GraZCNfKw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <c220d99f-d69a-ede0-630b-2f593412daca@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2020 15:10:13 -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: <CAChr6SzXFPbcPL++gftey9T_nCVBds+Sb1Z4MpkC2GraZCNfKw@mail.gmail.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/KPCiaz3HJQBHqYYxtE88KAJLOEw>
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 20:10:17 -0000

Rob, I can see no reason why this document would change what is or is 
not considered an end-run.

Yours,
Joel

On 1/25/2020 2:44 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 10:45 AM Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu 
> <mailto:kaduk@mit.edu>> wrote:
> 
>     Apologies for the pedanticism, but there are some frequently confused
>     items in here (and the terminology of
>     https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/iesg-discuss-criteria/ has
>     since evolved).
> 
> 
> Perhaps we need an ITAB (IESG Terminology Architecture Board). :)
> 
> 
>     On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 08:25:32PM -0800, Rob Sayre wrote:
>      > 2) Document Actions (WG)
>      > 3) Document Actions (Individual)
>     ...
>      >
>      > That leaves #2 or #3. If the draft is concerned about #3, I think it
>      > should state what the IESG is to do if the draft reappears as
>     individual
>      > submission.
> 
>     I assume you mean Independent Submission here (i.e., via ISE).
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
>      > If the document is about #2, that would be good to state as well.
> 
>     In light of the above, it seems clear that this draft is proposing
>     changes
>     to (2) and (3).
> 
> 
> OK. The questions in my original message are still unanswered. 
> Currently, dissenting or non-consensus Informational or Experimental 
> documents can be published through any of the channels, with the 
> rationale that they don't require consensus anyway. While I understand 
> (and have understood this entire time...) that this document only 
> intends to change the IETF stream process, my question is whether it 
> would also add to the set of documents that are considered an "end run".
> 
> thanks,
> Rob
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email