IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tao-discuss] Revising RFC6722? (was Re: Review Request for Possible Revision of the Tao of the IETF)

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 21 April 2022 19:59 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tao-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tao-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48E113A0943; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 12:59:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.108 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=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 knVj2DprHrIN; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 12:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52c.google.com (mail-pg1-x52c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52c]) (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 484A93A0923; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 12:59:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52c.google.com with SMTP id t13so5512905pgn.8; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 12:59:17 -0700 (PDT)
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=WqbcSMrX1hoAf4Wys+7b5M6cKmzdQS6l94EeqIbdZBA=; b=IVt7gNpw1Kz+wBI9z53KQyEm4NHXNPcKwXMJVo6KaPeqOieMM3LbjQ5eK+ll9lbfLf u4mScHaRGn3i/uNa/qQCfgw3LZYvqkweJ2U/ZROH6921UTvy4gELj+KnyWgNnQq+FoJY uZfVyNPbJMpETnp51L8fSSdgo/uG3xisH9d9o6J6vo/U/Di+4jvclily8Vw7zWkrcsXg WBwb+1Wtbby3+gtBDDy5lF23JZGsrjWqMDpQncG3h1wdHCwIf3uCyCUuxKIq7A+Hodqo p/4CboNLkjm58VI5ivS/djiPgm05QVQ5OuiXR6XHlJ8rara/ESs79v5y9tIMko38yx7f Fo7Q==
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=WqbcSMrX1hoAf4Wys+7b5M6cKmzdQS6l94EeqIbdZBA=; b=sFwwqbPvQFAYEzreSRt6yKbMdtSiN5FTM291+7Tj1LAoYnMoFm8s9rlQVopD1eWVTL qynJ5EOhJtfa4mW03Xz0K0xphx402bO6qgD84a4FwBdZve80rh1V6SS4YpDsG1yEZHMg XwfxPYhTfSIwXk/vrE8iulHgnhOLhgDADK5JUb95s4rw4lRsvsUuf5xyEic6723TIl4/ /YD/uWViDQSpoTd4jngsXIYso3soQW1htveI5RAFHcA2Xt4j0z/9CzT9+sRHTy47mmJ/ 6Jdfgzuac5SVG2OR/CvQDCbS/FDwzysLqdYq+Y88CO9N8dhQ69X7+2BIaMbPp1b/0nxs z6xA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531ulr9Oj1l6AlxjMsgQ7wmtKtrHInLAWujMW/RTTXfHBslOiIx6 eKkW619pxALhjT5DYGHK8cQaIMnOgOFjy9ad
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyDtLaO2vtyOGn4HDdqwrOKVEEV+9goJlgXD60+ZrlN1l8Bzy1fBuBMHfP3My9waGthYj6bYA==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:f91:b0:50c:e602:1361 with SMTP id ct17-20020a056a000f9100b0050ce6021361mr1153338pfb.61.1650571156171; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 12:59:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.248.23.127] ([125.168.223.160]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id oe17-20020a17090b395100b001cd4989ff6fsm3574244pjb.54.2022.04.21.12.59.12 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 21 Apr 2022 12:59:15 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Cc: Niels ten Oever <mail@nielstenoever.net>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "tao-discuss@ietf.org" <tao-discuss@ietf.org>
References: <905c834c-30d7-ede7-6ea1-a5b200a249d7@nielstenoever.net> <0192FFCD-2410-415B-90B2-248F2823CC97@eggert.org> <D6FFB194-FBC9-4AC1-B29F-B00A9A3C2E3E@akamai.com> <C41F2B92-1216-4A2F-99D8-611D0457AE97@eggert.org> <D91F9FE6-4641-4C7D-92A7-CE6F57AD00FC@akamai.com> <fb4d1b71-a13c-b98d-be48-cd2d4007a909@gmail.com> <3cd4806d-cbf9-e78d-4709-d9fb98ce1ed2@gmail.com> <5097E7DA-82F7-4DCA-B24A-9815625E417E@eggert.org> <817a03aa-aea7-3bea-3abe-7840d10de444@gmail.com> <15D1105A-39B1-4DD7-BBFB-94C2389FA8FB@akamai.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1d5ab831-1ba1-86ac-386b-139d04c5775b@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 07:59:09 +1200
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: <15D1105A-39B1-4DD7-BBFB-94C2389FA8FB@akamai.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tao-discuss/-bMcOf6DRNY-mW2hoBrGI0oaAgc>
Subject: Re: [tao-discuss] Revising RFC6722? (was Re: Review Request for Possible Revision of the Tao of the IETF)
X-BeenThere: tao-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of the Tao of the IETF <tao-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tao-discuss>, <mailto:tao-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tao-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tao-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tao-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tao-discuss>, <mailto:tao-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 19:59:23 -0000

On 22-Apr-22 04:56, Salz, Rich wrote:
>> I don't at all think we should take the responsibility for the web site content away from the LLC + EMO + IESG, but just have a principle that non-trivial changes should be given some sort of community review.
> 
> Correction of facts: EMO has no responsibility for website content. Some may be confused because Greg is full-time staff and also an EMODIR chair.  The IESG currently has, by informational RFC, oversite of one page.
> 
> Expression of opinion: It would make sense to have an email address (or even a mailing list,  like ietf-website-discuss) to report issues or concerns, but subjecting www.ietf.org to some sort of community review (especially *prior review*) is a bad idea. Recall how the IETF nearly ripped itself apart over inclusive language.

Well, I disagree. What happened over inclusive language was annoying for a while but we got to the right place. But most of what needs fixing on the web site is not contentious. It just needs a wash and brush-up at a regular rate. I'd certainly expect EMO to care about that.

     Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email