Re: [Rfcplusplus] IRTF stream considerations

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 12 July 2018 22:50 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 523C41311F6 for <rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 15:50:12 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 qG-Jm-tk0hh8 for <rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 15:50:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x22a.google.com (mail-pf0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22a]) (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 246651311E7 for <Rfcplusplus@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 15:50:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id b17-v6so21438112pfi.0 for <Rfcplusplus@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 15:50:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cVdQEVQY5VibQkIB1VdtHrGshWpKQaFxvKejAKyedmw=; b=buGVS4I51YkuA7JqkEfDIgQ0JAb5GGypAaRWcgp63yVJGLxmj83xkbuaI+FDhwkL4N chmyUiBqbSeAa/IScZKAzRl6fDjIffMo4bodhyq1kY2WJZUR81oibkGjIjtqeXQ5ml/d 0750JPI0hAnWk2xfWVdSAyb+qy31QLKDhnG0iVGMCJgG6iNf9zR0RqBH+JBO5tz6hj/C pwoIWnMxIVtmkVGvQvFC22yurqXsHXkIIqCQnbyAerreWOmjmsByHUc5FG+tcts4yJsj /I7ZrtB86IKbWtA9Vp8uO9061m17sJ2QvWkaPqLQ/I9mACrFH4K48mpfbUj45JNA+DmF IvUA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=cVdQEVQY5VibQkIB1VdtHrGshWpKQaFxvKejAKyedmw=; b=ATOEJtaGHndAzzEGwQPKhzObWMhlIy90pFShzFQ0nLrRwACTXPK8f7OV2VNT/UPZzI NUuLgsyltM2+uDsn5+1a1QTe7Iyw+GKGokgviOs4SypOftMP3Wpn3iYgoODMxw27RjiU vT41LsHkeHkS/WHnJryPaAC45UC227SHNkarTDZe5SsLfeOnM4z8zs2Y3Mldn+sPzf8e BLS8PzUpzsU5Sx/VGWHAPabahAgvFw5Sn7Dz0T/8OIFCTvsdHdh38ADGriERCODxdyH/ grLT9GBZUqLusamY5nhPxdLe+cbzEtMrvyxxcOhydpfvq4yR8T5MUjTO5324815h2piq OEaA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlH3I2aFDsBidxVBpZdO2GeAvctZzAiGFkaxfoou+eeEWaxyvCM1 mHlsSldAuPWJvFHrxDQH+n6mDA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpd6DAvhLCS2APvpZDvIM0NOCl3+L2xWgt0nge82fcftE7byaClTzu1pcTUfqNNQGNKdr/SAFA==
X-Received: by 2002:a65:45cc:: with SMTP id m12-v6mr3755061pgr.160.1531435809261; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 15:50:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.40] ([118.148.121.80]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e2-v6sm2940298pgo.92.2018.07.12.15.50.06 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 12 Jul 2018 15:50:08 -0700 (PDT)
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, Allison Mankin <allison.mankin@gmail.com>, "Rfcplusplus@ietf.org" <Rfcplusplus@ietf.org>
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> <77486708-e38d-03d3-f4d0-0f0b67797542@nostrum.com> <f9dede92-980a-58de-444e-b9934b8e78b3@gmail.com> <3d659e94-8455-f7c4-98a8-405bfda728c6@nostrum.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <06ac0cc7-85e6-135d-1332-cd2e75d4640f@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 10:50:13 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3d659e94-8455-f7c4-98a8-405bfda728c6@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfcplusplus/UQsD0hPlmnnKH0RSeRYuthOh2bc>
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: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 22:50:13 -0000

On 12/07/2018 18:26, Adam Roach wrote:
> On 7/12/18 12:40 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> No, I'm not trying to move goalposts (although where they are is still
>> unclear to me).
> 
> We appear to be talking past each other, and for that I apologize. I 
> used non-literal language that assumed a shared cultural context, and 
> that's bad form on my part. I meant the term "moving the goalposts" as a 
> reference to the informal logical fallacy [1], not some metaphor 
> regarding reaching consensus or finding interested participants.

Understood, but sometimes, when you reach an initial conclusion, another
difficulty then appears. That isn't so much moving the goalposts as
discovering new goalposts further along.
 
>> But for the RFC-producing community as whole, I currently have no idea
>> where the goal posts are. To quote my draft "How to reach out to this
>> community is in itself a big question."
> 
> It's not exactly tenable to hypothesize some unidentifiable group of 
> uncontacted peoples with an interest in the topic and conclude that 
> things must stay now just as they ever have been as a consequence.

No, and that wasn't at all what I intended to imply. What I mean is
that *if* the IETF decides, by its own process, that the IETF wants
to make a change, *then* the next stage must be a serious effort to
discuss it with the rest of the community. Currently, we don't have a
clear method for that.

(fwiw, I would like to see some changes - but not the one
implied by draft-thomson-rfcplusplus-label-00).

((fwiw, I'm now very close to entering radio silence until I reach Monteal))

   Brian


> That 
> rationale would have blocked the format work as well. We allowed the 
> rfc-interest mailing list to stand in as a proxy for that community in 
> that case -- it would be inconsistent to claim that we can't use it in 
> this one.
> 
> /a
> 
> ____
> [1] 
> https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/129/Moving-the-Goalposts
> 
> .
>