IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 151: Consultation / Approval for RSCE Selection committee

Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch> Mon, 10 January 2022 20:23 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@lear.ch>
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 E9DC33A11DD for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jan 2022 12:23:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.804
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.804 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.714, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=lear.ch
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 GbrZxcRU1ISr for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jan 2022 12:23:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from upstairs.ofcourseimright.com (upstairs.ofcourseimright.com [185.32.222.29]) (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 C793A3A11DB for <rfced-future@iab.org>; Mon, 10 Jan 2022 12:23:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.227] (77-58-144-232.dclient.hispeed.ch [77.58.144.232]) (authenticated bits=0) by upstairs.ofcourseimright.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-18) with ESMTPSA id 20AKNSuV115440 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 10 Jan 2022 21:23:36 +0100
Authentication-Results: upstairs.ofcourseimright.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lear.ch
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=lear.ch; s=upstairs; t=1641846216; bh=/Rfdh3NU4MIBLbm9DSSLfUGtTYpmz5dOTuJNd6COYYo=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=KAvNXcuhsGAivIuFsY4SXRogG7p96O8GBTI0ultju5xDkLrsABT7uKh2lgeQnNFyQ OEBPtL0ardbEq1CIwVx9HfrzJQsNVH+iiwSqzEVm4BZixwDbef/vQq3J21ndKlgTNd hxFchTc3vKZ1lCPDdTH+j8xNZNWCcI8Xss4hqJsw=
Message-ID: <4427b157-8ad9-9152-28ae-5db750932d66@lear.ch>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2022 21:23:25 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.4.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Cc: "rfced-future@iab.org" <rfced-future@iab.org>
References: <a1d634a5-dad4-7bfc-ed6f-08e00fb31446@lear.ch> <C6C07861-A0EF-4C74-A5EC-A6D6ADD4F367@vigilsec.com>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>
In-Reply-To: <C6C07861-A0EF-4C74-A5EC-A6D6ADD4F367@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------1xYWIQK9kOIYy5X57zsYyf1t"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/wgA3isViByDvxqdSh3OQCL2TTVo>
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 151: Consultation / Approval for RSCE Selection committee
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: Mon, 10 Jan 2022 20:23:45 -0000

I'm beginning to see a rough consensus here.  Are there other views?

Eliot

On 10.01.22 20:59, Russ Housley wrote:
> I agree with the suggest that Brian made about consulting with the four stream managers.  It does not need to be a prolonged consultation.
>
> Russ
>
>> On Jan 8, 2022, at 3:44 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've opened a separate issue on the discussion that John Klensin initiated regarding how the selection committee has formed.  At this time, I would like to ask if others believe that there is a concern.  If not, we will not make any changes.
>>
>> To review, John has proposed that the RSAB be consulted once the ED has a proposed search committee.  I suggested that the consultation could occur earlier.  Jay pointed out that any such change would delay hiring of the RSCE and didn't think the change was necessary, as he is consulting this group.
>>
>> One way forward might be that we put together a proposal in the RSWG to address this point, so that we can get on with the hiring.  That would of course require rough consensus and approval.
>>
>> Another way forward might be that the text doesn't become operative until after the RSWG and RSAB are formed.
>>
>> There may be other ways forward.  Please indicate your preference.
>>
>> Eliot
>>
>>
>>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email