Re: [rfc-i] draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 26 March 2020 16:18 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 C2C6F3A0E43 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:18:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.451
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.451 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, 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=nostrum.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 yc_0X4TMMKwv for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:18:39 -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 0E0A33A0E3C for <rfc-interest-archive-SieQuei0be@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:18:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A921F40713; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:18:27 -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 7DA4FF40713 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nostrum.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 cqLfkSuwr9iy for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCC5EF40712 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.17.121.48] (76-218-40-253.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [76.218.40.253]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 02QGIJ5j045447 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 26 Mar 2020 11:18:20 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1585239500; bh=ZGK+DB4E/5OnSHMqmF614TnE8Rxlsk9qn73cH14fAhU=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=p2NdkPlyIQLWaD6iz+Wi0kRXRY38UaSxzrl1RM+HnwZn/T5WA+O41Hl7CFDIHmG6N dBhkqUrX5rDkucjVg7I5BJRniOTXGqstvBE9G5g+p+IJGBmWLnt8pqAUARS3z5dTb9 kZjiggzgfPn9bUuAx1o6egFUkBew1DcoZUZswC0E=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 76-218-40-253.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [76.218.40.253] claimed to be [172.17.121.48]
To: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
References: <CAM4esxQDdY6L7N5ieVkEfZuGwDdtUnptvuVN69Bu744jLc2-xg@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR11MB4366823B2EE040B5C3A2FBA0B5CE0@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <20200325232451.GR30574@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <9AA83737-63DF-4B4F-84FC-4BC6CAC7A50C@strayalpha.com> <20200325235405.GU30574@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <B8AC5A2C-4C65-4949-9C1A-C022E1479FEE@strayalpha.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <6f5c3f41-4440-b594-a82e-9a403fe77fe3@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 11:18:11 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <B8AC5A2C-4C65-4949-9C1A-C022E1479FEE@strayalpha.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/
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" <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.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 3/25/2020 10:21 PM, Joseph Touch wrote:
> What PROBLEM is driving this?
>
> Can we please STOP burning person-hours on this sort of nonsense?


The problem is that the IESG keeps having to rehash this discussion on a 
document-by-document basis, which wastes the IESG's time. This is 
happening at the same time as the community is begging the IESG to 
figure out ways to lower ADs' workload so as to make it more attractive 
to a wider set of candidates.

There is a straight line between those two points.

/a

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