Re: [Rfcplusplus] IRTF stream considerations

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 13 July 2018 01:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4809130EAE for <rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 18:17:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 BveztADejCof for <rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 18:17:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x230.google.com (mail-oi0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::230]) (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 56CC5127333 for <Rfcplusplus@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 18:17:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x230.google.com with SMTP id y207-v6so59323409oie.13 for <Rfcplusplus@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 18:17:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=swCuTEFVSQ05iuTud7uh0bf0P4wOzMtzIbxGf0kto+g=; b=qNIe6zs2eUiYuVN6uMpgOwcIdj7StPChKbQ2j4AZ+PyiKUh6Znwliyp2aipfyD7D2H 7RkX/dV8xZuk+KXrGX6+7XllBpDorjgg6RtzywxlFDrCKM8QX0pbwfyUweoMGptR6gPf vbj0sSqqWwZyP0bFEA+jFOyXl91QglwRaczlEWB6HCWn9mR7TuYhKmk2OHyVwmYIfYUJ uqGd4t1R+RdSjkudz27b8Y3WKJd+VLlvrWi0eGVS8A//lw5NwOEi5vyHnXRf+hRtsfOj LlqPZpvcbUeBwoQLJXRpD8OUeBXsV36zcBTvZt6bftYl7GMxQdcJafa36QnisOgTIru8 m4Ow==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=swCuTEFVSQ05iuTud7uh0bf0P4wOzMtzIbxGf0kto+g=; b=X52RudCXgLOzqm6VZ7EXGwvC98hPtVtJt6MTyecz4crdxYv4f+mbalj+SM0z8rcP3v FWreLXzMSt9/vplq/6qDI0UKbFSorwF+1xrI5wQnHbjkSxBgDptUC0lIL54hcJLWT+Xd 6TMCJQLV8ZkOeKDAZ6eD5puaiSjKaXz9quC1lvguHjtwNEKGTjv5/AZ1F0/BVYfwKfVA Xz3qRLGj8g3TI5yvKKxkpq499Jjmmi6otA2TWydeTFeL0XN4WbZwkRXwyONgayBMKCdc 9sRO/xQy2tvMhs0fyJWsspW3K1mO5Ojdri/SHS7NzMc4GQOEt01Y41i2iTG/M7/dsTcn zcHA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlGtpDH12oES1ZwmSGoOUiGjFwsHz+m2yrgmtVcX2NDdbyx+4fac g9KJ4Jr82EkEN7/UpAoenI+/6m6ICHv3lUWmgXw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpcKG6Y9Pvv0niRScRu7toJZ/gnuDLvLddmtRWS4R5yAhKALPEAZWeLiQ1fKKvyGrglS8S4JBZHQ3zLqlOg7pVQ=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:d015:: with SMTP id h21-v6mr5153158oig.142.1531444626395; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 18:17:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a4a:66d9:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 18:16:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <0eefb84e-1a2b-4bbe-9e33-35a49b4db161@gmail.com>
References: <CAP8yD=vm+jRxdi3ZUncoFZNDYKOQKvFaphT7gxb5o1tDXWmumA@mail.gmail.com> <b69b370c-317b-284f-85d1-1353c67a3043@gmail.com> <8f98deb9-7ed3-3303-356a-e6d3dc5a80c0@nostrum.com> <08e8650b-2f33-943e-ddcb-a6bf6c45b2ce@gmail.com> <c2c450a6-4f14-6325-8c54-6ecee4e0983f@nostrum.com> <22b91a2a-82ff-af78-4b79-c58eb305cec6@gmail.com> <CA+9kkMCP+66+dxcukbG4BN24heH5oVHP6fJB0tZ3xA+Gsc2-QQ@mail.gmail.com> <0eefb84e-1a2b-4bbe-9e33-35a49b4db161@gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 18:16:35 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMAkxcPttoa6oXaE_HECvb-d1nqj+h1Ke3W3qXbtAqVNZA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, Allison Mankin <allison.mankin@gmail.com>, "Rfcplusplus@ietf.org" <Rfcplusplus@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f316830570d73c0c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfcplusplus/RhmgHYeVAxf-x1qVi96UT7xLeV8>
Subject: Re: [Rfcplusplus] IRTF stream considerations
X-BeenThere: rfcplusplus@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: For discussion of the RFC++ BoF proposal and related ideas <rfcplusplus.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rfcplusplus>, <mailto:rfcplusplus-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfcplusplus/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfcplusplus@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfcplusplus-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfcplusplus>, <mailto:rfcplusplus-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 01:17:10 -0000

Brian,

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 4:00 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ted,
>
> > But this BoF follows the pattern we have used recently, at least to my
> eyes.
>
> Yes. The qualitative difference is that the proposal on the table amounts
> to *chucking out* several RFC streams,


Quite simply, that's not the proposal on the table, and it's not likely to
be a proposal that emerges from the BoF.  While I am not speaking for the
IAB on this, it is my personal impression that the IAB is not only not
likely to "chuck out" its own stream, but it has no interest in ending the
financial and other support given to all the streams.

This is a proposal to experimentally re-label the output, with a clear
rollback if the experiment doesn't succeed.  Critiquing the proposal is
certainly a valid part of any BoF, and what emerges may be very different,
but your characterization is simply not supported by the BoF proposal in
any way.

Ted




> and that is (IMHO) so fundamental
> that a major and as yet undefined effort is needed to discover whether
> this is acceptable to the whole Internet technical community.
>
> The previous changes were administrative by comparison.
>
> Regards
>    Brian Carpenter
>
> On 13/07/2018 03:57, Ted Hardie wrote:
> > Slightly off-topic, but perhaps important
> > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 8:54 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
> > brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> There's a real difference, in my opinion, in that the definition of
> >> the streams was a codification of existing practice, and the format
> >> update was something people have been requesting for many years.
> >> Neither of them showed any signs of being fundamentally contentious.
> >>
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "fundamentally contentious", but both
> > proposals had many months of discussions and, in some parts, quite
> serious
> > opposition.  Contentious would have been a word I would personally have
> > used to describe the format update, for example, and I'm not sure why you
> > would disagree.
> >
> > This time, we've seen a much more radical proposal which, if carried
> >> forward, would fundamentally change the series. In that case you can't
> >> duck the question of authority and who calls consensus.
> >>
> >>
> > I'll note that the proposed experiment borrows many elements of the
> format
> > discussion's process.  While there is no question that the final format
> > documents were published by the IAB, the face-to-face discussions were
> all
> > hosted at IETF plenary meetings, for the same reason:  it's the place
> where
> > the largest number of stream contributors are together at the same place
> > and the same time.  It also borrows the rollback method inherent in the
> > format proposal (double RFC publication, first with trial format, then
> with
> > final format).  If you have other methods in mind that would produce more
> > transparent discussion or more opportunity to test the results as we go,
> > I'd personally be interested in hearing them.  But this BoF follows the
> > pattern we have used recently, at least to my eyes.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Ted
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>    Brian
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Rfcplusplus mailing list
> >> Rfcplusplus@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfcplusplus
> >>
> >
>