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 17:26 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 F00FE12006F for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 09:26:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 nF_ea0NMQpx4 for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 09:26:47 -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 3F85512002F for <last-call@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 09:26:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EE35300B37 for <last-call@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 12:12:46 -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 E0MXWkX08UOp for <last-call@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 12:12:44 -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 90962300670; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 12:12:44 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <7f253bfc-1e18-1a3d-4d43-d464b50ad8b8@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2020 12:26:44 -0500
Cc: last-call@ietf.org, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D0512C70-CBD5-4C76-B98C-3A7FCA8F888C@vigilsec.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>
To: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/SDgdL9YbMKZBccS4AmZFZhMcB2E>
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 17:26:52 -0000

Joel:

It seems to me that you would need to pot other things that are in this IESG statement into the BCP that updates RFC 2026.  You are really building on top of the procedure that are required by the existing IESG statement.  For example, RFC 2026 does not require an IETF Last Call for an informational or experimental document at all.

Russ


> On Jan 25, 2020, at 10:41 AM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> 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.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 1/25/2020 10:27 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
>> Joel and EKR:
>>> 
>>>  this document deliberately addresses a very narrow issue that while admittedly rare has come up a few times.
>> In 2007, the IESG published this statement: https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/area-director-sponsoring-documents/
>> In this statement, the IESG says that it will not approve any document without an IETF Last Call.  See the first paragraph of Section 4.
>> I suggest a better way forward would be to post an updated IESG statement that requires consensus as well.
>> Russ
> 
> -- 
> last-call mailing list
> last-call@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email