Re: [OPSEC] OpSec@IETF117: Meeting minutes

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

From: Arnaud Taddei
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2023 14:25


Hmm, ok just to keep my comment in the box it was intended.



I am learning the IETF so thank you for the feedback. My point was super down on earth and selfish.



Like many my time is limited. When I receive a ‘minute’, in order to save time, I like to short cut a long read to reach out to the conclusions and be able to read a clear status.



As I couldn’t find it, I asked.



If this is not in the culture of the IETF, be it.



I was not debating on how consensus is built here or what not so lets not open this new box.

<tp>

Indeed, I tacked it on surmising that it might be a follow up- issue for you.


Looking at the minutes, I see

  *
  *   Poll (show of hands)
How many poeple read this document ?
7

Start WGLC after meeting


that is, the WG Chair is assessing the degree of involvement of those present with the I-D and, based on that, deciding to call for consensus that the WG reckons that the I-D is ready to advance to the next stage; and that e-mail calling for consensus duly arrived in  my inbox yesterday followed by other e-mail expressing support for WGLC.  I note that the  WG Last Call ends on 22nd August so I anticipate that shortly after that date, the Chairs will declare consensus on the WGLC.  Cumbersome perhaps, but as I say, that is how the IETF does things; the mailing list has primacy.

HTH

Tom Petch



p.s. another answer to a question that has not been asked.  Mail in the IETF should be text/plain and not text/html but with the webmail I am now forced to use, I have little or no control over that so if this is not text/plain, my apologies






From: Gert Doering <[e-mail]>

Date: Wednesday, 9 August 2023 at 13:27

To: tom petch <[e-mail]>

Cc: Arnaud Taddei <[e-mail]>, Jen Linkova <[e-mail]>, opsec WG <[e-mail]>, OpSec Chairs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [OPSEC] OpSec@IETF117: Meeting minutes

Hi,

On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 10:35:10AM +0000, tom petch wrote:
> The Chairs may judge that support from six implementers weighs more
> than opposition from ten operators:-)  Such is the IETF.

Not sure if this was meant as a random example of why judging consensus
can be complicated at times - but as written, it does reflect quite well
on why operators feel that spending their time on IETF lists is a lost
cause...

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: [phone]         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

This electronic communication and the information and any files transmitted with it, or attached to it, are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, legally privileged, protected by privacy laws, or otherwise restricted from disclosure to anyone else. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, copying, distributing, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please return the e-mail to the sender, delete it from your computer, and destroy any printed copy of it.