IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rfcplusplus] IRTF stream considerations

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 12 July 2018 06:26 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 750CC131060 for <rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 23:26:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.879
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.879 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 1_U7-c8klkCI for <rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 23:26:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 DBD9E131066 for <Rfcplusplus@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 23:26:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Svantevit.local (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w6C6QC2Q076954 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 12 Jul 2018 01:26:12 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Svantevit.local
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <3d659e94-8455-f7c4-98a8-405bfda728c6@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 01:26:06 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f9dede92-980a-58de-444e-b9934b8e78b3@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfcplusplus/u1vgUrhV54gURK_xURG-Q14FqBE>
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 06:26:18 -0000

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.


> 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. 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email