IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Mtgvenue] Comments on -04

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Tue, 31 January 2017 15:46 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43F2812950A for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 07:46:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dcrocker.net
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 01YfVcK6_8qj for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 07:46:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (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 1CDAE1294C5 for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 07:46:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.168] (76-218-8-128.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.128]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id v0VFm1d5028088 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 31 Jan 2017 07:48:02 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1485877682; bh=bNhfpu3PBkciNNh4/0U1kNC0Tx6BEdjauAQqx1HcKSQ=; h=Subject:To:References:Reply-To:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=JaZvFIW+I6uxjST4/81M+jVIb11gGe+izzzoagxYlyivx6blj3VV4WH2kmMAUld47 tBw6zI3Qd+Uxj7uYMHn5rIdKTJjKiWCJGDsz8q2kSsBJUVJvVDvQru34/hRrfRzhEP gAV1cxcO411ZoNlhgGtITUvTjaL1gkhF7QYhmAUo=
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>, mtgvenue@ietf.org
References: <20170131010548.GL47762@mx2.yitter.info> <de401360-8827-c427-19fe-ace8d2987f40@gmail.com> <20170131040757.GM47762@mx2.yitter.info> <2c957e0e-999f-f8a2-3a61-3aff3606b087@dcrocker.net> <20170131152139.GC53056@mx2.yitter.info>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <26b344aa-4901-9aba-0795-ab4319c8a9da@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 07:46:16 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170131152139.GC53056@mx2.yitter.info>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/6atw4gUIRqOuv39dgza9YWlFV3E>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] Comments on -04
X-BeenThere: mtgvenue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: "List for email discussion of the IAOC meeting venue selection process." <mtgvenue.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mtgvenue>, <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mtgvenue/>
List-Post: <mailto:mtgvenue@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue>, <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:46:29 -0000

On 1/31/2017 7:21 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> {Small procedural nit:  You've raised this issue at least twice before (July
>> and November) and got quite a lot of discussion, but little-to-no supporting
>> traction.  On the average, the IETF frowns on persistently re-raising issues
>> that have been previously considered, absent new information about them.)
> I think our interpretations of the outcome of previous discussions
> (not to mention the word "considered") may differ.

Oh.  Well that would mean that we've failed to incorporate the changes 
that you got wg support for.  I apologize.

Which of the previous times your concerns were raised developed that 
support?  Please point me to the mailing list content that produced that 
agreement, and in particular please indicate what changes were agreed to.


 >  Also, in my
> experience, the IETF frowns on WG document editors waving away any
> persistent objections with condescending responses both on and off
> list.

Interesting.  I raise a very specific process concern -- including 
reference to the prior dates -- and you return with a generic (and 
undocumented) ad hominem.  Nice.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email