Re: [Lwip] (I can't take this any more? Does anyone else?) Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-lwig-curve-representations-23.txt

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Fri, 11 February 2022 11:37 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
X-Original-To: lwip@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lwip@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 576943A0DE8; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 03:37:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=eggert.org
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 BPTIV5n4cRta; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 03:37:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [91.190.195.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90ABD3A0CFC; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 03:37:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:85e9:7ed3:7d20:c4e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 03C231D2C3E; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 13:35:59 +0200 (EET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1644579360; bh=luveUueA/HsHSBLPlznl0oFj35NIg47TQ8B95h3PBCY=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=Xy63DE1xVmBkD8gKhurr4TfZp8b6fL07QEEFzbjM7FFlNQ5GtoeIo1hDmfhCdOyHo B4Flf6ujIxvTb8viQXomcW6L9KXQM+znlppwgBYdQgzzbxGTSTDynH413wlYKJ8Zi+ bnDhB7FVaINI+MgEnLHqUKmUTwai2X4nqo3yoZr4=
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DB1E1084-CA98-47AD-99A0-9133D3465974"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 15.0 \(3693.60.0.1.1\))
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
In-Reply-To: <2c3496d3-f3ea-eff5-c04b-5c8b06bbe9b9@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 13:35:58 +0200
Cc: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>, "lwip@ietf.org" <lwip@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <F0E23087-4E03-488A-895A-FCB81BC0B3A4@eggert.org>
References: <164280578662.16592.16625041318608542476@ietfa.amsl.com> <204cbd49-e74f-a11b-2e81-3328cd16488b@gmail.com> <be92c3d8-089e-a918-fc4b-539a3d760499@gmail.com> <CAMGpriXcW61FS9jBs_qUmceGUF_586bSYQjz-5PEirj=pBXDgw@mail.gmail.com> <2c3496d3-f3ea-eff5-c04b-5c8b06bbe9b9@gmail.com>
To: Rene Struik <rstruik.ext@gmail.com>
X-MailScanner-ID: 03C231D2C3E.A3C03
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lwip/lerhLhRaeT2uEvkYTyOL_UHfsM0>
Subject: Re: [Lwip] (I can't take this any more? Does anyone else?) Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-lwig-curve-representations-23.txt
X-BeenThere: lwip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Lightweight IP stack. Official mailing list for IETF LWIG Working Group." <lwip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lwip>, <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lwip/>
List-Post: <mailto:lwip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip>, <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:37:27 -0000

Hi Rene,

I'm sorry if this document is taking longer than usual on its path through the IETF and IESG. It's coming from a WG that should not have really taken on the work (see my DISCUSS) and contains content the IETF is not typically producing, and which still seems to have significant issues. All of this necessitates quite a bit of special handling, which takes time.

I'd like to make it clear that based on a preliminary discussion among the ADs, it seems quite certain that bringing the document to the IESG for ballot in its current form is unlikely to be useful. Pushing for that - without first fully addressing the feedback you have already received - is not going to lead to document approval.

Finally, the IESG as whole does not appreciate continued accusations that specific ADs or the IESG as a whole are somehow stonewalling or mishandling your document. Personal attacks are also not acceptable under the IETF guidelines for conduct.

The IESG is processing a large number of documents every week. Documents such as this, which require exceptional handling for a number of reasons, take longer, especially if feedback that is given is not being incorporated. Publishing RFCs on the IETF stream is based on established IETF consensus, one aspect of which is that community feedback should be incorporated into documents.

Thanks,
Lars (on behalf of the IESG)