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

"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Sat, 25 January 2020 16:59 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 99FE512004A for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 08:59:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.623
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.623 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.275, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 53qmihOZxUtF for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 08:59:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (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 39B2C120025 for <last-call@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 08:59:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.32.60.41] (76-209-242-70.lightspeed.mtryca.sbcglobal.net [76.209.242.70]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 00PGxUCo054509 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 25 Jan 2020 09:59:30 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 76-209-242-70.lightspeed.mtryca.sbcglobal.net [76.209.242.70] claimed to be [10.32.60.41]
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Cc: last-call@ietf.org
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2020 08:59:45 -0800
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.1r5671)
Message-ID: <41DDE7C9-95A7-4198-8DFA-060A6C800A1A@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <7f253bfc-1e18-1a3d-4d43-d464b50ad8b8@joelhalpern.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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/Ph0ccduoLE8fwRNKQ82CwOa1egs>
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 16:59:50 -0000

On 25 Jan 2020, at 7:41, Joel M. Halpern 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.

If you distrust the IESG so deeply about their process, you should 
probably distrust them on calling a rough consensus.

I do think that having an RFC is a good thing, but for a different 
reason: until Russ posted his message, none of us would have thought to 
look in the IESG statements archive to see if anything applied. We look 
to RFCs.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email