IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Mtgvenue] document status, the role of the iaoc, and enforceability

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Fri, 27 January 2017 11:55 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
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 E25471294AD for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 03:55:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.721
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.721 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_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 RQkpt6sS0CrU for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 03:55:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A16C1294A1 for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 03:55:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2694; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1485518119; x=1486727719; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=B71oy7TtrH07le/mBy2ecoqDzzaP4mE/6Ish/lNaf9o=; b=iicwkADTWdhZEJTm0aw+9V5I9IBx9hz28itJKsgHDduRQlwUGzq3HHAu 6cYIxg6xAwLXXLaTqXO9AzAGAOul609n9niNTeK3QsF5iXEqHyUTQK8Av EdDvj+UuiEq0LXLiYa4igqrO3Mn9ftpboc3OsS83HdOS/bHAAF0UamKtS A=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AGAQB9M4tY/xbLJq1dGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBgygNAQEBAQGBAAMnhDSKCXKRDpUvggwuhXQCgloYAQIBAQEBAQEBYiiEagEFI2YLGCoCAlcGAQwIAQGJXQ6tGoIlim4BAQEBAQEBAwEBAQEBARMKBYhQgmqDDIRDgkAfBZtRg2+CA3WDGod4ijWGP5J+HziBGxMIFRWEdxyBYj86iHsBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,295,1477958400"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="650197406"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Jan 2017 11:55:17 +0000
Received: from [10.61.93.159] (ams3-vpn-dhcp7584.cisco.com [10.61.93.159]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v0RBtGtZ032741; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 11:55:17 GMT
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@nomountain.net>, mtgvenue@ietf.org
References: <d064ed7c-abf6-68e6-584d-03d5354ee09f@nomountain.net>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <1827bf44-e4d9-f436-e9d1-19da74029bfb@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:55:16 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <d064ed7c-abf6-68e6-584d-03d5354ee09f@nomountain.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="I3HRgfFbfUL2N9q4O274EUGkoB1aqUjX3"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/VyQpdSt7vgEmxvsdCNy9JNwl03M>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] document status, the role of the iaoc, and enforceability
X-BeenThere: mtgvenue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
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: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 11:55:21 -0000

Hi Melinda and thanks for asking.

I do not yet believe this issue has been properly addressed.  I am
particularly concerned that normative requirements and recourse be
addressed because of the number of requirements listed as "mandatory". 
Dave asked me for text, to be fair.  Here it is:

At the end of 1.2, after the definition of terms:

"While this document uses these terms and these meanings, it remains the
responsibility of the IAOC to apply their best judgment.  In particular,
this document is not to be used as a means to appeal the IAOC's
decisions.  Individuals who disagree with IAOC decisions are invited to
participate in the NOMCOM process and to raise concerns with both the
IAB and the IESG in order that the matter may be addressed during member
selection."

Regards,

Eliot


On 1/27/17 8:00 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> Hi, Eliot:
>
> Do you feel that the concerns you raised asking for greater
> clarity about recourse in the case of disagreement about
> venue selection have been addressed satisfactorily?  (ref:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/ZdeYcXv3adpQEuPYXfAvDabki24/?qid=31d4d393cac02fc490a7dbd4b8e8db3d)
>
> Melinda
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email