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

Julian Reschke <> Tue, 03 March 2020 04:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CDE13A0A75 for <>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 20:49:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.199
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sp85sRrKsmLH for <>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 20:49:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 734543A1822 for <>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 20:49:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33F9FF4071C; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 20:49:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24403F4071C for <>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 20:49:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pTdjOE3h67UT for <>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 20:49:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFC39F40713 for <>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 20:49:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=badeba3b8450; t=1583210890; bh=VNk3Jyj7TVUgG+JVWXJkxkl1X3PvuMy2+twzQi806Yk=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=BiktbCiM7nRrZBKQa8zMiAYG0HQK4J1aHhN4UTxiljYfgZSHVDWAvJIn1NNTPxhAG q4Sw7mEQXDd5n7Et+6w9pEShF8l5qt9yYv7tfWtbzoE6pisolsnbR/cdvYVuclUaiP RLXHL8RDEUQH2qrcw1/2fuZyXCaOIxQAnZIziqws=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [] ([]) by (mrgmx004 []) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MjS5A-1jpAzQ1rWU-00kxFJ; Tue, 03 Mar 2020 05:48:10 +0100
To: Henrik Levkowetz <>, Wes Hardaker <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <alpine.OSX.2.22.407.2002210838240.88568@ary.local> <> <> <>
From: Julian Reschke <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2020 05:48:03 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:u+R87MsxfoB4pSewlPmZJrTxvaq8xqus4De9DWx/lvmlZyCtXB8 K6IE4vlSUczsr5mc7rX2+xiLoOgIYdfjLniY6Li0TFNCoMSfiSb+4I9wixpd+zCVnSC+MH8 R5XllUIqESXCLox44xJhpef8dNwWGS5RjBZWSEpU3JwRUD9P25Ww2MW+hN84Bz3q1h/3Een 02lrfvSIBXs7ogs4ra6mw==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:tK0pv+tSc+Y=:uWuitlH9H7rkyWipaKpqpk 5dtugxRdDDYFi4N8ClPsHP4XekUTs0WuRVO6HcezNMuMCRs0a1sk2cr8MYF5gcK0XYBOSv8/h PJzucsJ0OeZUzMiCxFFLv97YtmgrcbBIFUdeoTGkP+mqfe8+ZkdMM5CYk3hfh4XfpwAwmbve9 u/xAyDa/A8a5F6KnFjwwtyvzFzmG4u4OanSzwj3qIlxKrvYj8GlyYVO7B3kr8lSE4XL4iNE/I w4cmPBBpvEiN6ymqRHz6qy53bGvZcTlc2H9PhiUKWEepA41o15Nn+e9+aRMwCmhf2y1kn4DXs +F2myltVjDPwDktDdRpVBkZOM8iVHzKftWKm3rpgtH8FMlecrpqsYTF0abprG+LLfyu3VipcI N4RxfpNQizimTgwRC6igG0SwEg7KlOVXqBi3OyKMuPZy92dgaiKPO5CnJsL+WUrWbx7PdqoMT KAp0QujEWgowHkP2dY5K1DxPqNyRZTTLS2kXhA2S+cqHGQtKwBNZpw64LG571x2/hj9GdZCnR bWMfqA6bA6oAzw4oX2ycQIzgaNgLh7Yp1TpHzNUtxT6C1QtlUyP2mp1eWis69Hui8BffWI/zK ZiE0mSrL2lyZqq1BAZntAnekm/yD1fobwGJu2XcMgKRVaHMPU16ICOuy7YycPBQToNBt/6Nh3 A9/ly6S7oq5ETxgFb+E37lpWH9qnbmN7rV3oTpgEptVTBxnUSiF/tgmBgyJ7l2JOqfhUvUh7J wZgpk6zt6dVi2su5V3lxtwRgYBskdWYXEFu/lfuzlv6LGc73/dNvdYMtiDioQnMrYhWQTMh66 hyufo0vrwjuylgqVnVYVFvJE1bZ6MUorFoG+zj/OagRJaTA7TynJ7vtG5JHaCYoEWE+qehDkX bl0y5wBHFbMVaxs8QJ9uO9YZzje9t2FXXLt6JF2Y5kW6XKm/JhFuVhkfCNZRqwyA7AzvQE3hg d3Ic/n4zSAz1ZaNTpeloB7tIV3s1HQFZK+Fn3L1X9ETqkCclWxRCtfI+to8AbUQSObaApDDVu xRyv0VIpXVO6y5PDbEBuLZefjvIDITr9joTz59FLy4dlYRUIFBWuBScWrZXpB0+88bSTBYP+C 15abHTLDy9ZMV+QAuEodIqMGsW1+XADYlUq5JNeVZ9OjrJSUPSssf4qJvMaGoy3Ez0ryxP6Yh SNDBcpSWEo+RT1tbyJCMXLjHaUIp0FRUVJatPOscvvQdt+K+5ZMVpEec3dCihHv+aq2qL68bR 3SqkwXb+1uCJEKt6t
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: "John R. Levine" <>, RFC Interest <>, RSOC <>, Internet Architecture Board <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: "rfc-interest" <>

On 02.03.2020 21:20, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> Given the number of lists copied here, I'd like to make just one
> observation, in reply to Julian's assertion, so that people who haven't
> been following the discussions on the xml2rfc-dev list in the last half
> of 2018 have a bit more data to work with:
> On 2020-03-02 19:19, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>>> 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
> At this point, people should be aware that the reason we haven't made progress
> in determining a revised specification is that when I started to feed back
> issues to the discussion list, Julian was sufficiently obstructionist in
> his responses to many proposed adjustments that there was absolutely no hope
> of both having that extended conversation and at the same time producing a
> tool release that would let the RPC carry out their planned transition.
> I deplore the situation we have, but the primary reason we are in this
> situation is that sensible discussion and progress in resolving proposed
> changes was killed by an Not-Invented-Here attitude from the v3 design team
> members active on the discussion list in the autumn of 2018, with Julian
> the most active in preventing any progress at all from taking place on some
> issues.

If that was true, how do you explain that I supported roughly half of
the proposed changes? And even for the changes I believe to be bad, I
implemented (and test-cased) most in my implementation so to be able to
provide useful feedback (see
and <>).

...having a different opinion is not necessarily "obstructionist".

Best regards, Julian

rfc-interest mailing list