IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] Comments on draft-flanagan-rseme-01

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Sun, 03 November 2019 22:07 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C00581200FA for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 14:07:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.751
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.751 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.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 fmNtwVMCU_VO for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 14:07:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2A1C1200F7 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 14:07:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68881F40712; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 14:07:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A12FF40712 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 14:07:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cmXhlYyxoYKF for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 14:07:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1969F406F3 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 14:07:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.115.146.247]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id xA3M7AmT013975 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 3 Nov 2019 14:07:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1572818842; x=1572905242; i=@elandsys.com; bh=pIPCqX+0OCUXiFj8lenoKOpauDv3gAS3fBDUVX0VvSM=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=oSfA6iDB1Qbpcn6UrD2U0BwLhdgDd0INxNMstMrbrn11iaG14wcFsClAaqkI9v2Cx 7RQ8hWuTQv21xV3ceSazvNXI7o754rXgiNdYy6yagwEYvPZnBHkCkEg0gQI9TcRLNr dh6HDQn4mgS75ZuelZUI/DlRpONjvqikVNKoyM+k=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20191103135031.11777920@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2019 14:06:46 -0800
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <eca1b2a3-0686-e86d-dd08-139a651b8dfe@gmail.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20191103002732.12192ec0@elandnews.com> <eca1b2a3-0686-e86d-dd08-139a651b8dfe@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Comments on draft-flanagan-rseme-01
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

Hi Brian,
At 11:16 AM 03-11-2019, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>The question behind that, which I hope will be discussed frankly, is
>whether the community trusts the IAB to act as the host for this with
>the necessary neutrality and open-mindedness. If not the IAB, what
>other host would you suggest?

Does neutrality mean not expressing any opinion in public about this matter?

>As for whether past I* chairs should be involved, I think the argument
>was that we need people who have a broad view of the issues, and past
>I* people would qualify. I don't think the argument was any deeper than
>that.

Ok.

>We aren't talking about the kind of financial conflict of interest
>that is of concern in corporate boards etc. So I think it's a matter
>of common sense that doesn't need working out or formal rules.

As I mentioned in my previous email, the draft mentions clear 
conflict of interest statements.  I doubt that leaving it as a matter 
of common sense would be easily understood.

Some corporate boards go beyond the financial aspect.  Would shared 
affiliation be considered as a conflict of interest?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy 

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email