IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Tue, 07 July 2020 17:50 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AA483A07FF for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 10:50:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.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 u7OJQEoJrv2u for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 10:50:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from glass.ash.relay.mailchannels.net (glass.ash.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.222.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B9823A0A01 for <rfced-future@iab.org>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 10:49:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CFDA7E0F1E; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 17:49:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a38.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-19-19.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.19.19]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 5FDCE7E1218; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 17:49:40 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a38.g.dreamhost.com (pop.dreamhost.com [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/5.18.8); Tue, 07 Jul 2020 17:49:44 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Versed-Illegal: 3a6919d556732d69_1594144184805_337903954
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1594144184805:273259568
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1594144184804
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a38.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a38.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE37DB473F; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 10:49:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=cryptonector.com; bh=zjSdSUCgb9x2WJ LldPtuidQZ2mg=; b=FJQR7YZeekmQ+ApQPs47wUujSrSiV8/Bo4TyCV88o/t3X0 gfYJzP9LQjlZJmjq2yDXU+sAHQzQClcSoUwfWspw/wmSq/sDwu2ou9aR0hPCgLGz iCNBG6gNfaVdSACGp5J/kTi1b5g844NAy2Tla7jHpRRJhSpm0c5LLvcrIZcnY=
Received: from localhost (unknown [24.28.108.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a38.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7DA6AB473E; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 10:49:36 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2020 12:49:32 -0500
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a38
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>, rfced-future@iab.org
Message-ID: <20200707174930.GP3100@localhost>
References: <d4d1cd2d-6df2-4cb4-b63a-f9bba45b48c0@www.fastmail.com> <51b72823-f2a2-29bd-bd88-f63e13522387@gmail.com> <d1f33279-0656-4caa-81e7-aa665d3a4acb@www.fastmail.com> <CABcZeBMdrfjy+kqQ20MS_1fZrNddff+ycwau5VdC5qAFQN2qVA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBMdrfjy+kqQ20MS_1fZrNddff+ycwau5VdC5qAFQN2qVA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
X-VR-OUT-STATUS: OK
X-VR-OUT-SCORE: -100
X-VR-OUT-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedrudehgdduudduucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuggftfghnshhusghstghrihgsvgdpffftgfetoffjqffuvfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjfgesthdtredttdervdenucfhrhhomheppfhitghoucghihhllhhirghmshcuoehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpefftdektefhueetveeigfefgeejteejvdfhhefgvddtfeeujeehleeguefhgffhgfenucfkphepvdegrddvkedruddtkedrudekfeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhhouggvpehsmhhtphdphhgvlhhopehlohgtrghlhhhoshhtpdhinhgvthepvdegrddvkedruddtkedrudekfedprhgvthhurhhnqdhprghthheppfhitghoucghihhllhhirghmshcuoehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhmqedpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhmpdhnrhgtphhtthhopehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhm
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/79r5f8zpF8AR9mmu_8g9Lp14ijs>
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Model proposal
X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program <rfced-future.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/rfced-future>, <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfced-future/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfced-future@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future>, <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2020 17:50:17 -0000

On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 10:04:01AM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 9:19 PM Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> wrote:
> > I do recall several lengthy discussions about the number of authors on a
> > document, but as these were recurrent and inconclusive, I am of the view
> > that these are perfect for a working group to strategize on.
> 
> I'd like to focus in on this example for a moment, as it also consumed
> a fair amount of IESG time, and I think it shows some of the
> complexity here.
> 
> [elided]

Brian's point was that this is too much work for the IAB, and not
Internet Architecture at that.  Martin's was that it was not too much
work, so it's OK to have the IAB provide oversight.  You say this took a
lot of the IESG's time.  So it sounds like you're with Brian?

FWIW, I like Martin's model, but I agree that if it would overload the
IAB then that part needs more thought.  At any rate, it seems there's no
disagreement about the LLC being in charge of contractual and funding
issues, so the only real point of disagreement -at least between Brian
and Martin- is to do with oversight and delegation by the IAB.

Nico
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email