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

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Sat, 25 January 2020 15:35 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.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 15759120013 for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 07:35:22 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 sDjf1IGKz07L for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 07:35:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45B1B12008D for <last-call@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 07:35:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EA5B300AF8 for <last-call@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 10:21:19 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id p_oLbW5Xruwu for <last-call@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 10:21:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (pool-108-51-198-163.washdc.fios.verizon.net [108.51.198.163]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D8F63300670; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 10:21:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Message-Id: <0D65509A-CFF7-4004-A519-45A5703FA64B@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7485EB19-74EB-4F99-95E3-044C7E647CA4"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2020 10:35:17 -0500
In-Reply-To: <41036FDE-EBC9-436E-8DE0-489388907879@akamai.com>
Cc: "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>
To: Rich Salz <rsalz@akamai.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> <41036FDE-EBC9-436E-8DE0-489388907879@akamai.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/Qqncg0KyQHeMj0_VIhGUUIpAvTM>
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 15:35:22 -0000


> On Jan 25, 2020, at 10:31 AM, Salz, Rich <rsalz@akamai.com> wrote:
> 
> I suggest a better way forward would be to post an updated IESG statement that requires consensus as well.
>  
> And what prevents a future IESG from changing its mind next year?

Nothing.  That said, the procedures in this statement have been followed since 2007, and the proposed change is really building on things that are in this statement, like the requirement for the IETF Last Call, which is not in RFC 2026.

Russ

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email