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> Fri, 24 January 2020 22:57 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 7FD0A1200E9 for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 14:57:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.634
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.634 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] 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 z8N73GGMr7Oc for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 14:57:27 -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 6DD1612001B for <last-call@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 14:57:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 484F070HmSz6GD4G; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 14:57:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1579906647; bh=m5tx9fWKJjb5k8DPzbSXsL9fkKWDX7K+NKHmxksM94A=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Umb95MxbTvNVelKBiIeahbGUJvVPbuTlW6kxxjX2NMR/aMdv5/oGopjmXP90MRAXk PkrZNxvhRR3yBFPDQge3TXNpkrgg5vrWcBeSAOEH45YU/+VQhjJZtebqWomwaO/kat Nagm3KjfXIGyf/WWM7iEQWDxQkN3L6WYckP6ekyE=
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 484F043tGMz6GF2r; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 14:57:24 -0800 (PST)
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, last-call@ietf.org
References: <157988932717.22102.17207308469919846350.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20200124135843.14565e38@elandnews.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <530e6ac9-4c52-fbf3-61fa-584ba8839f7e@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 17:57:22 -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: <6.2.5.6.2.20200124135843.14565e38@elandnews.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/ztJ2DqB7o1AmhKn2XTOclBbfYaU>
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: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 22:57:28 -0000

Thank you for reviewing this SM.
The reason this document does not directly update the boilerplate is 
that the last revision of the boilerplate RFCs explicitly said that from 
now on the IAB updates the boilerplate without needing a new RFC to do 
so.  Hence, this document is only concerned with tightening the rules, 
not writing the boilerplate.

With regard to updating 2026, this updates the text in 2026 that permits 
informational or experimental RFCs without IETF rough consensus.  it 
removes that permission from the IETF stream.  I do not know how to 
clarify the document in this regard.

Yours,
Joel

On 1/24/2020 5:20 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hello,
> At 10:08 AM 24-01-2020, The IESG wrote:
>> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to 
>> consider the
>> following document: - 'IETF Stream Documents Require IETF Rough 
>> Consensus'
>>   <draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational-02.txt> as Best 
>> Current
>>   Practice
>>
>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits 
>> final
>> comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>> last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2020-02-21. Exceptionally, 
>> comments may
> 
> The usage of uppercase in Section 3 makes it look like the IETF only 
> understands an absolute prohibition when it is written in uppercase.   
> Is that really necessary?
> 
> The current boilerplace (RFC 7841) states has the following text: "It 
> represents the consensus of the IETF community".  Is there a reason why 
> that that RFC if is not being update to match what Section 3 defines?
> 
> Which section of RFC 2026 will be updated?
> 
> An IETF participant is allowed to disagree with the IESG if he/she 
> believes that the IESG is taking a bad decision by approving the 
> publication of a document.  There hasn't been any such case in recent 
> IETF history.  I don't understand the rationale for having such a 
> significant change to address certain corner cases when there isn't any 
> factual information about such cases.
> 
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email