IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Fri, 13 September 2019 15:55 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 BF5A4120273 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 08:55:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 2xkDnyRmU2oe for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 08:55:10 -0700 (PDT)
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 0443A120073 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 08:55:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9483EB81313; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 08:55:03 -0700 (PDT)
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 2299AB81313 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 08:55:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
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 pADftPwEsaGH for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 08:55:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F44AB81311 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 08:55:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1i8nua-0007AH-R8; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 11:55:04 -0400
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 11:54:59 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, iab@iab.org
Message-ID: <2335B23E657BB18D88667EAC@PSB>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] New proposal/New SOW comment period
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>
Cc: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

Sarah and everyone else,

It has been pointed out to me off list that I didn't mention the
process Heather is trying to convene to discuss general
directions.   I apologize; it is what happens when I try to cut
a message down to shorten it.

I think that is a great idea.  

But, in the context of my earlier note, what I'm worried about
is the community perception of the credibility of the steering
and decision processes.  In that context, I'd like to see
Heather (or a panel acting as a surrogate for Heather and her
predecessors) actually have the leadership responsibility and
authority for this, not just acting to convene interested people
for a discussion, something that, in principle, any IETF
participant could do.

I hope that is a bit more clear and, again, apologies for the
omission.

   john

_______________________________________________
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