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

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 03 March 2020 04:49 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 5CDE13A0A75 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 20:49:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.199
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=gmx.net
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 sp85sRrKsmLH for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 20:49:24 -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 734543A1822 for <rfc-interest-archive-SieQuei0be@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 20:49:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33F9FF4071C; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 20:49:04 -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 24403F4071C for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 20:49:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gmx.net
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 pTdjOE3h67UT for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 20:49:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.19]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFC39F40713 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 20:49:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; 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 [192.168.178.124] ([84.171.159.28]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx004 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MjS5A-1jpAzQ1rWU-00kxFJ; Tue, 03 Mar 2020 05:48:10 +0100
To: Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>, Wes Hardaker <hardaker@isi.edu>
References: <57ce444e-4ee9-26c5-9e76-ae6906e69159@gmail.com> <52BA75DF-6D58-4BF1-953F-1911F301DB20@encrypted.net> <8f3e62b9-03ff-9fc2-bef9-a341ce7ca897@gmail.com> <CA+9kkMBm7dH05mks2mREWO+n4A+f_m=MBC6pEicp=VVrmg6VKA@mail.gmail.com> <4e426227-a7b6-b4d0-8333-aa92d679f03b@mozilla.com> <1d6af0d5-a2c2-b239-43fd-7c937f06ccb2@gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.22.407.2002210838240.88568@ary.local> <165f02c8-3573-9454-ed98-efd7d3764d0f@gmx.de> <CANk3-NBv3Y+-G8VSt-M=NgShfjbvz+gsQTPtKUAsr3hBarW7Hg@mail.gmail.com> <10ea86bd-053c-37d3-2966-21a8187748d5@levkowetz.com>
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <11096fe0-dc88-c8d7-79e3-17d5d0f9d474@gmx.de>
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: <10ea86bd-053c-37d3-2966-21a8187748d5@levkowetz.com>
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-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: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>, RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, RSOC <rsoc@iab.org>, Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>
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>

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
<https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/report/1?asc=0&sort=ticket>
and <https://github.com/rfc-format/draft-iab-xml2rfc-v3-bis/issues>).

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

Best regards, Julian


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