[TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation

Quynh Dang <quynh97@gmail.com> Wed, 15 January 2025 14:05 UTC

Return-Path: <quynh97@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 674BDC09E1B3 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 06:05:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.856
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.856 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_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] 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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4HTELR9ux-U9 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 06:05:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x229.google.com (mail-lj1-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::229]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D472EC1ECA7E for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 06:05:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x229.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-30225b2586cso8384761fa.0 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 06:05:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1736949916; x=1737554716; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=/V/Zk3IntTK0TuT7nZAgKKYjyGudPCtGHP5UE57V7RQ=; b=BATB8+cIFpp9DWWGE16K8dQNw/nSOpescOFBQZHPgOFBncG7/Lf8711ySKNgH+6ZBI /PuAY1C1/bvuBS6Yn4BJ2zdOvzhEY4/GdhGgeACP8wjGRfB17mcCQLCCdO/HCSNm26Hi C6kB+PLqQp3Sl/Bpcb/8zSo6TbDEvsdPvwK6XRTgkjRVsvq+fb4qoheGpZtCxAaTw9kY sMh9QidgCS0pU4cFQIBlrB8dntt0DHsvFmwmFVH/cMeEkq20GA2BYVCigikSTiLz+F2C HIpvFl9PSoGcZeFgpl8BZTBcmDZQN8v2Po8SbdMuzfRszkSFqAiHduppy2pWQIum3txg Cn6Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1736949916; x=1737554716; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=/V/Zk3IntTK0TuT7nZAgKKYjyGudPCtGHP5UE57V7RQ=; b=q12RLthOYD/xqt4ae1q54iS+FfTs01E7IzmB70itJZuoP7sz1SJUs2bupzxFzf7IJ5 TWbGMrmIATqlsyhQ02/YkG0rqiEdQt5iAOALiSvZp2koP1J6lcPGW8cgJd2Uzdpwobna owcUr1VVgYuP5HC9fg5QORypBM17BO3cvHV4hj4sTD9yHobgBPMuw3St3rC4TXbr4R3V ojHJKgBhoiGurhm3jLBd8jEGNTrodmVDmPZPDsq49ct+xkmAH8tlUW2JmiQQl/wWB1xG zB5z+W/HW4S+GErdamhmBTcTM8+nkQFjzSiAL3hobouLyFPJr62a/5KKIpsOcTO9UxV2 YMUg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yza+DzJXNJkKj9KDC4wvn8xfHi5LMPW+O90WP0ZcZw9P6AnSobo UJLZZVFg8iKnBndGq4lJbO8kkBbAS9B7L353BH5dOOZQLdzwNl8pbAHM8mwx4aOiZqMUNlKNFzx m/RZH9cW2eQMR6U5h4FAnnCYFYtjSWw==
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGnctIVHXF9PBTuvjYvSBcOtzdEfMBM1q86UcNUA8PKhRmLCV61utHo5SIfBaxxT3 dnpMNfnxXTmH16NVd/zBSmeRVeuT2/1pSJg5o5NwTkhjrfgpKxg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH84acAKQ3OyskAeU2ytqyD5TJKwD1sQ/o6XiIuqewoubWCRg+K9Ehb+lAM5nZfGQdJVeW3up7gU/psf8cv6/8=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:3e0e:b0:542:23b2:8010 with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-542abfbdcc3mr952392e87.23.1736949915583; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 06:05:15 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <FDD895DA-2BEF-4475-9AE5-15EB5E7E1AE3@sn3rd.com> <fcee0cc0-07d1-47c9-9b1e-172b69aafe37@app.fastmail.com> <MW4PR09MB10059F5B79AC6A1B170397D6EF3182@MW4PR09MB10059.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> <B68EBF64-D37D-4C8F-92F8-D8E88EDA735D@obtuse.com>
In-Reply-To: <B68EBF64-D37D-4C8F-92F8-D8E88EDA735D@obtuse.com>
From: Quynh Dang <quynh97@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 09:04:57 -0500
X-Gm-Features: AbW1kvaCzKmkAplC3qfPonbXZLDKTiabr4AeaV3EUYm0hJtvLPfPwDe1BssXKPM
Message-ID: <CAE3-qLTqqniszz-NLOzcLxcWn6A=J4ifMfRv9JYrrxq8K5nh0g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bob Beck <beck@obtuse.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b61046062bbf2a6d"
Message-ID-Hash: OEHX6JP7BXDQA7EEBNKZFPZQUTLT5ETK
X-Message-ID-Hash: OEHX6JP7BXDQA7EEBNKZFPZQUTLT5ETK
X-MailFrom: quynh97@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tls.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/1P1oQEBhmGGPgzmbjEdH8GLL5lg>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:tls-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:tls-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:tls-leave@ietf.org>

On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 2:57 PM Bob Beck <beck@obtuse.com> wrote:

>
>
> > On Jan 14, 2025, at 12:20 PM, Dang, Quynh H. (Fed) <quynh.dang=
> 40nist.gov@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> >
> >  Maybe consensus calls can only be made and completed at the in-person
> meetings ?
>
> The problem with in-person (or even virtual at the in-person meetings) is
> it then becomes even more of a pay-to-play proposition to participate.
>
> Not all valuable participants have an organization funding their
> participation at IETF. I believe we still want to encourage such
> participation, not discourage it.
>

I believe your point has been accepted as a very good point over the
years.  Yes, we need to find ways and to create more opportunities for more
people to contribute to the IETF's works, especially the students and early
career engineers/scientists.

I can't think of any method that works well for all.

The individuals who don't join in the IETF meetings (virtually or in
person) can share their knowledge and thoughts over emails.

I believe it is true that there are people who want to, but the financial
cost  prohibits them from joining in an IETF meeting either virtually or in
person.

For the people not attending the meeting due to other reasons (not
financial one)  and some of possible reasons are they don't want to pay the
fee or don't want to travel etc., they can't vote and I expect most of them
(if not all) would feel that is not fair to them and I agree with them on
this.  Let's say there are 2 options: A and B and this group supports A.

The other group who are willing to pay thousands and time to travel long
distances ( and to get tortured by the jetlag) join in the meeting to
support B (either this group pays for themselves or their employers pay for
them).  So, it seems there is some evidence to support the thought that the
choice is more important to the group supporting B than to the other group
supporting A.

Any result will hurt one group (can't be both groups have what they want).

How about the situation when people have meeting conflicts ? Their record
of attending the IETF could allow them to vote later, say within a week or
two after the IETF ends.

I started the question about "how to avoid the potential problem of one
person using multiple emails to vote if the consensus calls are done over
emails".  And, that was my thought, I did not know any better ways. My hope
was that other people will come up with better ideas which would make the
email only group (the group supporting A above) feel fair.

Regards,
Quynh.









>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to tls-leave@ietf.org
>