IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rfced-future] WGLC Review of the draft

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 04 January 2022 20:38 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 5A1D83A0819 for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 12:38:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.813
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.813 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.714, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 2KUtJ-Pfz6_n for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 12:38:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x530.google.com (mail-pg1-x530.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::530]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F41B3A0812 for <rfced-future@iab.org>; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 12:38:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x530.google.com with SMTP id i8so25180186pgt.13 for <rfced-future@iab.org>; Tue, 04 Jan 2022 12:38:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=T47EYLc6kH7q7FoXv1FFx2wIqIwOInGiC9ACTyja6cw=; b=fVFYP7Xuz7Ng5tzQv7I1yS8DDQOzHxS2htWjLrxrC9yMxD+WJlNmXqARVOoKEBNmQB fZS4lHs1SxqLtZK4H1Oj4pezcOdd3Iu+ei98KcJfThefzsi30E6KCgokhCFlFpAwMZGJ DZ5KMUIlIWDTnQYHIT+TPewG4vlKRxjnop/NA+rkDxStm06VyM8Ycig+z3K6v+eOeChv 57pONyeErbmYcMmUauM0zG2WRmLXooe+oCxkZvsDSr0eMaHKI4S/bI+JUhOEk4xbPCk4 QC0vlkqxTRt+mNNn9wpmfU+NCdfXyRBF8ydJ4rPAFv4QvA1YCn23B5BRQGLheNE0zVZW HpfQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=T47EYLc6kH7q7FoXv1FFx2wIqIwOInGiC9ACTyja6cw=; b=rtO6QFRXKpvwvgHJhJTor2OIZxGu2/2/UBiRBEM5V9NkRnMAdUiCeidQ42m+5acibS ZgP/xLWC9Ft0MYlORHuwpeq4u233zhovCbp9L1xR1r+mHXj2TNSzaVJ53+YEGGIObVFD ugWhHnx88wbjGfhb6g3SgPej2orSu67cIs7aVaVOVWO2/8K9vgP09BFnVGmAML1yZzVq vSlHSQyQbgaO2RERCATwS02kTsxwwOf3Nk+tnLiG7sRB374ubxJUIkvUfYzvE5BpGQe7 u2OJ3FzlFsafOBZAn9mF635Mvj+0Ih0nRAEM8iuCe2FXf1TamoCzQj7HO8OIAmfM+c60 TBOQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5301DzztI2CUJpB0NplMZ8CVxl56g87tVfYTbzeUx9LeUuJCF8Tp GDYm6m3Qyp2jwyN6/wN5IBs+xL81LHMPig==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzy3xoyDwl3tZb7pTtYIEGlY2we031P6evuzDLlx4IKFxlQyKwchK5C/3tW4ceZtvdP1HxLcA==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:bf48:: with SMTP id i8mr30653087pgo.368.1641328694633; Tue, 04 Jan 2022 12:38:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e003:1071:1701:db7:d041:a2d:ce65? ([2406:e003:1071:1701:db7:d041:a2d:ce65]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f7sm42580171pfe.71.2022.01.04.12.38.12 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 04 Jan 2022 12:38:14 -0800 (PST)
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Cc: rfced-future@iab.org
References: <CABcZeBO3-q+SMTFNZyeC50eghFs1CJNSLojmr1Zip1g_nsGZHQ@mail.gmail.com> <d7ce7879-2324-69d1-0770-e104aff6c68c@stpeter.im> <CABcZeBMtZUa9cdr6a7znjdMY3UwNPpg2d0d4KwosfmzE1KqmxQ@mail.gmail.com> <87ea0c57-3269-d8ea-90ec-0f91096f1d28@nthpermutation.com> <03f489e1-1070-bbeb-c6fa-1b1dd1bb60b9@gmail.com> <31F77D23-E927-4401-B8FE-558AD4602575@gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9bb6206e-ecf3-d309-612a-d1e724ff75ec@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2022 09:38:09 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <31F77D23-E927-4401-B8FE-558AD4602575@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/HQj76ybXgbjgyJWhyb5qgQWCvz4>
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] WGLC Review of the draft
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, 04 Jan 2022 20:38:22 -0000

On 05-Jan-22 09:20, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Brian,
> 
>> On Jan 4, 2022, at 11:30 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 05-Jan-22 07:52, Michael StJohns wrote:
>> ...
>>> What I think EKR is saying - and let me use a concrete example - is that if 5 people that think changing the numbering system of the RFC series proposes that in the RSWG, gets RSWG consensus, but then the community overwhelmingly thinks that's a bad idea - well so what?
>>
>> I'm confused. The RSWG is open to participation by anybody. How is the 
RSAB going to conclude that the rough consensus of the community as a whole is different from the rough consensus of a WG open to the community as 
a whole?
>>
>> I see an infinite regression here. It's communities all the way down.
> 
> Isn’t it for the same reason the IETF does an IETF Last Call after the a working group last call?

Yes. But I don't think there is a real analogy here. We expect the experts and interested people for topic X to be in the X WG, and the IETF Last Call is looking for issues affecting the rest of the protocol suite that the X people have missed. Here, we are all "experts" in what we want from 
the RFC Series and everyone who's actively interested is going to be on the RSWG list.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do a Last Call and listen to the results. I'm 
just saying that it will be addressed to *exactly* the same people who are invited to be part of the RSWG, so I seriously doubt that new arguments 
will arise.

That said, Eliot's extra words "and that there is rough consensus of the community for the result" seem right to me.

     Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email