IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net> Fri, 13 September 2019 16:36 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 2075C120112 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 09:36:21 -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 2pnqjFZuVEGl for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 09:36:19 -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 4E257120041 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 09:36:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C370B80C03; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 09:36:13 -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 E5593B80C03 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 09:36:11 -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 3PGW4JfhD7f6 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 09:36:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aws.hosed.org (aws.hosed.org [50.16.104.137]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2CD6B80C02 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 09:36:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aws.hosed.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10E32803A3; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:36:16 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at aws.hosed.org
Received: from aws.hosed.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (aws.hosed.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zSI4lOhY2olt; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:36:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.69] (c-73-71-250-98.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [73.71.250.98]) by aws.hosed.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 892C2803A1; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:36:15 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net>
In-Reply-To: <2335B23E657BB18D88667EAC@PSB>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 09:36:14 -0700
Message-Id: <F058909E-806D-4E3F-A1BE-DCA0AF1156EC@encrypted.net>
References: <2335B23E657BB18D88667EAC@PSB>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
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, iab@iab.org, IETF <ietf@ietf.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>

Hi,
	I try to reply to emails in the order they came in, so sorry John, wasn't trying to beat you up with the "Heather is leading a call" thing. :) Thanks for following up. I still hold that you should join one of the calls and share that feedback. It's a useful path forward, and one that We should discuss.

Thanks
Sarah


> On Sep 13, 2019, at 8:54 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
> 
> 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