Re: [rfc-i] [IAB] [Rsoc] Archival format to rfc-interest and the IAB

Wes Hardaker <> Mon, 02 March 2020 18:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 141923A0EAB for <>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 10:20:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bbDFM9RczEI5 for <>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 10:20:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 769503A0E97 for <>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 10:20:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0CEEF40709; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 10:19:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE4A8F40709 for <>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 10:19:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XOeVbzRRhX-7 for <>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 10:19:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32a]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A736F406F4 for <>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 10:19:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id j16so237823otl.1 for <>; Mon, 02 Mar 2020 10:19:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=lDJyZwJhGCAlahkHd+4g207fBEmUiO9aSGrS3pXs5dU=; b=pUUr14NyDv5437lMH9oicExmkOey3oEe3dDZDW1Rb2BSeAp9Tp4bMZrfZyVho2AEik pbgwG3IaeigB2cyEb0Ddnz7PZsr1DuxXss8jfRaG7ny05TXIFBvO6Y/yfABo3UERfNI6 kyJZJvV5jDwVOcFnxvVOrAHeQg3QUilgjNuj12u00UEh7PpmdHynLInkvXVZq1uEFnwX 7odSesuZ6awKs5iIpo+DYYDehghjG6PpQANfI5ookLmgW0PqIsgSjEqU6CnqRDQJR5GD NEzroHfVv3GRQh0y9cEIv3vtpGyVXNk4OJcYcmbMaAGvjQIFm+J34s9LULnYxsFiDldG cKlw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=lDJyZwJhGCAlahkHd+4g207fBEmUiO9aSGrS3pXs5dU=; b=WpymucqMabDgWhUDDlAx0JeriN/SMBarpAMyPl0XPo20/NvZLwTGIy8Qv/uPoBz/VK kWLDHsia+W4A4I/YiWy0RBH9ca6pDOiD8z3XQ2YwGDO4fuLWS4MICr+Xl9ms2OQ+2A6e +8giLEMuNAIbiPq1ES/7Zaz3zgX4jZdAhQagpzdDpVNg5avu62bY35//t05bHnexwUeS eI709G465imu9+7Y+wOFrY5AfIdFv3lREEcROEiwgq/EuTMLThb5CRFZj05EgYdsgqLn 7QJ+jr9XnD2uHgIUUB08biPYgZtA9IovLHC515CWFbG6lTCdIAlVp9ODKi613lZ+KMgj w1PA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ0KeYT1VREpKn83zhSs7wUoA5P3k21Zi0y7tHIc5cL/1imf1mQj o7w86LTlTG6poX3e+GS8U2hnOereaiGNHYK6DJcofQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: =?utf-8?q?ADFU+vs7SPXp4C+R4tnZILJ40GcSwbIwODo7aa9t3WO5?= =?utf-8?q?NYxjPjOsWRY4ft4x6M+AYlGtxVLJN+AtYttoEpB2eWQychI=3D?=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:6c58:: with SMTP id g24mr356027otq.229.1583173196707; Mon, 02 Mar 2020 10:19:56 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <alpine.OSX.2.22.407.2002210838240.88568@ary.local> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Wes Hardaker <>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2020 10:19:20 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Julian Reschke <>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] [IAB] [Rsoc] Archival format to rfc-interest and the IAB
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Cc: RFC Interest <>, RSOC <>, "John R. Levine" <>, Internet Architecture Board <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2878423907738148082=="
Sender: "rfc-interest" <>

> FWIW, the fact that *you* do not know the answer is kind of scary.

I expect that one of the things to come out of the upcoming discussions for
the future of the RSE roll will be where decisions are formally held and
what the right level of independence is with respect to the RSE role.

It's now something like 9 months since I tried to draw attention to the
> current mess, and there seems absolutely no measurable progress on this
> issue since

 I, for one, am happy you're pushing forward in bringing these issues
forward.  Unfortunately, the timing of needed v3 changes and the need for
this discussion pretty much collided at the same time.  I do think it's
important that we document these questions to ensure they're addressed in
due course.  One question left in my mind is the urgency of the problems:
if we have what seems like split-track v3 specs for a while due to
operational issues, how does the pain level grow with that timeline if not
resolved by time X?

Wes Hardaker
rfc-interest mailing list