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 07:55 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 5405C12001A for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 23:55:39 -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 yj_xRdIxNVlb for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 23:55:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io1-xd44.google.com (mail-io1-xd44.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d44]) (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 5C592120018 for <last-call@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 23:55:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io1-xd44.google.com with SMTP id h8so4465679iob.2 for <last-call@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 23:55:37 -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=1FPIREccq7ZgEHTeCV78xE8aMfqr9KfdAw26D/GlHVg=; b=my+tXDvsd1KGLSosjijPl3wZqIKDd/bbtsmFA2eEgLUFuTbcY5gxi6kIlsoYRZsuZs dbGPgSJsWVnKqlHODIyfMl4WpTPA01/GRvHqzxkLG8c29904VfDkE/MPZTocNtLkd/9b l29RwUP9JylZXkzzxieqZZ2AgQcu6WUV6YlPsmFPaVJm71JwBgo56QR7vON4PJsqZQ0i gqO+ZQktN6AOk7JEn674ZENKfWR9baGdCXTzfE4977rpSRiGteVOpLrAPXoAjidfPWh0 BUJWL/n8d6zdzYgDseeMTCJ8jcnTnRzJmPQtsvyWlz4441EYartKx38/He0g57VKZMfc HLew==
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=1FPIREccq7ZgEHTeCV78xE8aMfqr9KfdAw26D/GlHVg=; b=uQdYQRLZ4L7mJJk7RZ4DBDb8ZqN+7gjlvar0Y75uOW/rqFm4IpESXRHokodCwzoBKr VCkFR7jDpNEwVA1fHwyDGt569wemfovHgZ2jOQLmbD7kHz6cny5ODS93Ux05+FL87mYA E3DHQs/FovLn9eN80bYRDQOBnu82rgoU0BhzGO8aAPdbSflRnjngnN6HBQk/SR5zzCyK wO8babcJmqZ419iGlybFdcKE8HMewOeUXhFCxYa40rCotWMF6IQ/NNOyFcqbgYZVXouB J/fIYmhIqMTm1FA5NaBnqfllUPtkEO9eD7sKbxlU8Kdg/sgCztEPWlcymj3Szn1LqUGc JJ2A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVNlHl68GsXoKyUJU6KgPcKAncp90pps4S+8evXN9VhJ52oEDq0 kvLCqNMhptfLmQ0APd/d9e1P744k78tRicGK3sA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzqZRnM1f8tst0v6GWU8h3RqUd++ryYgqGJ+8YKzvCiFe66UBm/rWPUh9qHckFL6f76j64VXXpUA02uFp0HbFY=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:e803:: with SMTP id f3mr5508192ioh.49.1579938936664; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 23:55:36 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <CAChr6Sy80-74g4cgKESwmdn3WSNjU_2XsjkChH9_8-ELnytC_Q@mail.gmail.com> <7829860d-7f8e-8c6b-e2c2-189e0946e35e@joelhalpern.com> <CAChr6SwkV05Qe_Wk0mV6_tuPrc4w-YL3wJ4ee1DTemTUWOezeg@mail.gmail.com> <1d310bb5-f219-1c83-e3ec-d00741e62cc6@joelhalpern.com> <CAChr6Sz=VZXr8Wa4pxd+opF80EqPtx8cZ-SjAR0__aCBToqeAQ@mail.gmail.com> <b370521b-8c31-c580-e772-5454016b81e5@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <b370521b-8c31-c580-e772-5454016b81e5@joelhalpern.com>
From: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 23:55:23 -0800
Message-ID: <CAChr6SyCH+86Xf8ruP4whCwOTC8R20Ls69K-6RLDpuGm4gmv5A@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Cc: last-call@ietf.org, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000163735059cf233af"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/NLsLxXqtX8ZcvqxdXP_1XDhnyU8>
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 07:55:39 -0000

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 10:42 PM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
wrote:

> This recently came up because someone thought it might
> actually be a good idea to do so to solve a problem.  I do know of one
> case where it was actually done.
>
...

> The case that brought this to my attention, and prompted the document,
> does not exist because the AD in question agreed after discussion that
> using the possible loophole would have been a bad idea.
>
...

> The other example I know of (the published RFC) is complicated because
> there was a lot of politics.
>

More transparency would be controversial in the short term, but ultimately
lead to a stronger organization.


>  From your notes, you seem to be trying to figure out if changing the
> rule would create a problem.  Given the existence of the other channels
> for publishing RFCs, which are NOT affected by this change, I do not see
> how it could be a major problem.
>

I happen to think the other channels are needlessly restricted. But I think
that's because it's the "RFC" designation that matters, and the quality of
the IETF stream doesn't sell itself.

thanks,
Rob

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email