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

"Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com> Sat, 25 January 2020 17:32 UTC

Return-Path: <sob@sobco.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 95CF4120059 for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 09:32:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 JsLESgXuXhah for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 09:32:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sobco.sobco.com (unknown [136.248.127.164]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C189B12002F for <last-call@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 09:32:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5A772B2B3B3 for <last-call@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 12:32:37 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sobco.com
Received: from sobco.sobco.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (sobco.sobco.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pb9LtZ4xp_K5 for <last-call@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 12:32:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from golem.sobco.com (golem.sobco.com [136.248.127.162]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 01C8C2B2B399 for <last-call@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jan 2020 12:32:29 -0500 (EST)
From: "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2020 12:32:28 -0500
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> <D0512C70-CBD5-4C76-B98C-3A7FCA8F888C@vigilsec.com>
To: last-call@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <D0512C70-CBD5-4C76-B98C-3A7FCA8F888C@vigilsec.com>
Message-Id: <04BE7049-779A-4A41-AECB-BDF7D4195791@sobco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/bQDMnk5acUhVOuxr-3TLrfz0x-Y>
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 17:32:41 -0000


> On Jan 25, 2020, at 12:26 PM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.

that was the non-requirement at the time

working groups wanted to be able to publish informational (at least) documents, for example, background information, whenever
they wanted to without the effort entailed in a IETF last-call

i.e., the omission was on purpose (at the time)

Scott

> 
> 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
> 
> -- 
> last-call mailing list
> last-call@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email