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 03:31 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 0D8E0120045 for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 19:31:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.635
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.635 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_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 rx9TpLePjdsl for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 19:31:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (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 2014C12001A for <last-call@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 19:31:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 484M4N0WZ6z6GDyt; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 19:31:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1579923092; bh=rPMZdfLOj8Om5CODTsGI3j4vI2DsIOIVBUtO4wsTUXw=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=EkAs872w5/iNOwrkRaBaYoqIwajnHtaoOcipDToF1ETvY05zqqMZU7K+x4ETxjpSW hH41u3WwlBymV7vLvPyCVDzsP+JVBTIVm1UEUuQ8rOtnfv/WIRRk67ZU2KbLVeyBpt aT1ipmeRUw485rwRpkJpnwElusaxqdwZhSq85X+g=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.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 maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 484M4M3QTQz6GF0R; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 19:31:31 -0800 (PST)
To: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Cc: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, last-call@ietf.org
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>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <994c4462-ef24-6d46-3bec-8aa5e14b9f78@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 22:31:29 -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: <CAChr6SyNTsz9uZNiN16OHLj6e=Xhcn1A8pr105Of+y_Jw8HSFw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/RGCnO5b1plconI7004cOMb8UyOU>
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 03:31:33 -0000

Rob, this document deliberately addresses a very narrow issue that while 
admittedly rare has come up a few times.

If you want to write a document to change the interaction between the 
IESG and the ISE (and thus the IESG and the Independent Stream) I can't 
stop you.  But I will not use this document to take sides on what should 
or should not change in that space.  And what was approved by the 
Gendispatch group, and sponsored by the general AD, is this narrow scope.

Yours,
Joel

On 1/24/2020 10:01 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 6:40 PM Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com 
> <mailto:ekr@rtfm.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
>     Well, I've red 5742, and I don't see what you are getting it. I
>     would suggest you make your point explicitly.
> 
> 
> Well, it doesn't appear that you (as a document author) had read
> https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/iesg-discuss-criteria/
> 
> since you used RFC 5742 as an objection, although it in fact details 
> some of the "iesg-discuss-criteria" procedures you said didn't exist. 
> You've also said RFC 5742 is irrelevant, and yet it also updates 2026 in 
> similar cases, so I suggest taking a closer look.
> 
> I think the name "RFC" is what matters to most submitters, and the 
> stream less so. I also don't think a club of 50-100 people who decide 
> what's allowed to be published (based on how they feel) is very healthy. 
> That's why I'd suggest actually considering policy around documents that 
> fail to achieve consensus. Where are these "Informational or 
> Experimental RFCs to be published without IETF rough consensus" going to 
> go? Should the IESG recommend them for the independent stream? Or would 
> they be an "end-run"?
> 
> What are the specific recent cases this draft is seeking to address? It 
> might be helpful to look at recent drafts that would not qualify under 
> this proposed BCP.
> 
> thanks,
> Rob

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email