Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------bXYtvcf6vbFLOnMdE1w020l0"
Message-ID: <818f644b-51d7-4c89-be29-b113f74731a6@nthpermutation.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2026 14:59:06 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
From: Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>
Autocrypt: addr=msj@nthpermutation.com; keydata=
 xlMEaYFkXhMJKyQDAwIIAQEHAgMEOdOOntc+rmV7lEMu7/N40GZj92v3Adfmv2aM5c+d8E8O
 JkeckP4/VEuGbS1X9f8eMQXlZ1HP+5wXd0MEXgP9ks03TWljaGFlbCBTdEpvaG5zIChLZXkg
 Zm9yIHRvZGQpIDxtc2pAbnRocGVybXV0YXRpb24uY29tPsKTBBMTCAA7FiEEZa5rMVt/UsI1
 H75faOOlrKh630kFAmmBZF4CGwMFCwkIBwICIgIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgcCF4AACgkQaOOl
 rKh630lP4wEAoV3d9ShCq/OW/uVaVolebc2vzqMyzxYb5cWTq7H0F0wBAJe+PhUWULDMpwIY
 8QyRKcUk0M3ESCBrn6YNw1gfhQQtzlcEaYFkXhIJKyQDAwIIAQEHAgMEnFdeZEzyxCp87sqf
 v8PyE9E2UJpY2spRMmp8YGg2pSwW0ExAJd/ucqn7BVJJuwKI+ZsFnya2yMneNrFC9ZRpJAMB
 CAfCeAQYEwgAIBYhBGWuazFbf1LCNR++X2jjpayoet9JBQJpgWReAhsMAAoJEGjjpayoet9J
 ifwBAJOUOlX+49Si1O7xkQpsdWud7YBmWkV7jWBqXQhU1vxlAQCSQCT4g9hwV2bHDrT3UJ2Y
 k6wVu0KD6I/E/t6hrdcRcg==
Message-ID-Hash: JGPHYRGWGT3R26RIA5WLEEGVD24LHEGS
Precedence: list
Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BTLS=5D_For_those_who_have_recently_joined_us_-_a_brief_digressi?=
 =?utf-8?q?on_on_consensus=2E?=
Archived-At: 
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/Pww97WxTQUIoaDs0Z-deg4cgPSM>

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------bXYtvcf6vbFLOnMdE1w020l0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi -  Note that the only hat I'm wearing here is of a long time IETF 
participant.

If you've recently joined this list, perhaps solely to "vote" on 
publication of a document, I wanted to give each of you a few pointers 
for your edification.

1 - Getting started in the IETF - 
https://www.ietf.org/participate/get-started/

2 - On Consensus and Humming in the IETF - 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282

First - the IETF does not "vote" all claims or statements to the contrary.

    Working groups make decisions by rough consensus as judged by their
    chairs. [2] above, while neither a standard or a BCP is IMO a
    reasonable explanation of the rough consensus process.  With respect
    to the current discussion, I recommend reading both section 6 and
    section 7 of the document.

    The IETF (collective intelligence) has long experience with
    variations on the themes of dog piling, greek chorus's, and sock
    puppets.  We tend to be able to differentiate between an
    individual's considered opinion and an unconsidered solicited
    "vote".  We also have tools (e.g. when did you actually sign up for
    the mailing list) that provide some more objective hints in this
    category.

    The leadership bodies (IESG, IAB) DO vote on the matters before
    them. But they tend to be rather resistant to any comments but well
    stated technical arguments.

Second, I strongly recommend reading [1] and appropriate links from it.

    The IETF is NOT IEEE, not ISO, not OASIS, not W3C, not Global
    Platform.  Our procedures and the acceptable behavior around such
    procedures have evolved over time, and were, at the beginning at
    least, incorporated as push-back to having ISO internet standards
    declared as replacing TCP/IP standards by fiat. (Ask an old timer
    about Kobe, the original IAB, and the IETF reformation).

    Trying to engage with the IETF without understanding the limits of
    your approach in the IETF context is unlikely to provide you the
    results you may be looking for.  Or substitute both "IETF" with any
    other organization and I believe the statement remains mostly true.

Lastly - if you've considered all of the above, and you still have a 
strongly held view - informed by your own research into the problem - 
express yourself!  In last calls, a short 1-2 sentence explanation of 
why you're supporting or opposed (or don't support but also don't 
oppose) the action should be all that's needed even for a newcomer.

Oh yes - welcome! TLS is important to the IETF and *YOUR* contribution 
is part of our rough consensus.

Mike


--------------bXYtvcf6vbFLOnMdE1w020l0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
  <head>

    <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    <p>Hi -  Note that the only hat I'm wearing here is of a long time
      IETF participant.</p>
    <p>If you've recently joined this list, perhaps solely to "vote" on
      publication of a document, I wanted to give each of you a few
      pointers for your edification.</p>
    <p>1 - Getting started in the IETF -
      <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.ietf.org/participate/get-started/">https://www.ietf.org/participate/get-started/</a>  </p>
    <p>2 - On Consensus and Humming in the IETF -
      <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282</a></p>
    <p>First - the IETF does not "vote" all claims or statements to the
      contrary.</p>
    <blockquote>
      <p>Working groups make decisions by rough consensus as judged by
        their chairs. [2] above, while neither a standard or a BCP is
        IMO a reasonable explanation of the rough consensus process. 
         With respect to the current discussion, I recommend reading
        both section 6 and section 7 of the document.</p>
      <p>The IETF (collective intelligence) has long experience with
        variations on the themes of dog piling, greek chorus's, and sock
        puppets.  We tend to be able to differentiate between an
        individual's considered opinion and an unconsidered solicited
        "vote".  We also have tools (e.g. when did you actually sign up
        for the mailing list) that provide some more objective hints in
        this category.</p>
      <p>The leadership bodies (IESG, IAB) DO vote on the matters before
        them. But they tend to be rather resistant to any comments but
        well stated technical arguments.</p>
    </blockquote>
    <p>Second, I strongly recommend reading [1] and appropriate links
      from it.  </p>
    <blockquote>
      <p>The IETF is NOT IEEE, not ISO, not OASIS, not W3C, not Global
        Platform.  Our procedures and the acceptable behavior around
        such procedures have evolved over time, and were, at the
        beginning at least, incorporated as push-back to having ISO
        internet standards declared as replacing TCP/IP standards by
        fiat. (Ask an old timer about Kobe, the original IAB, and the
        IETF reformation).</p>
      <p>Trying to engage with the IETF without understanding the limits
        of your approach in the IETF context is unlikely to provide you
        the results you may be looking for.  Or substitute both "IETF"
        with any other organization and I believe the statement remains
        mostly true.</p>
    </blockquote>
    <p>Lastly - if you've considered all of the above, and you still
      have a strongly held view - informed by your own research into the
      problem - express yourself!  In last calls, a short 1-2 sentence
      explanation of why you're supporting or opposed (or don't support
      but also don't oppose) the action should be all that's needed even
      for a newcomer.</p>
    <p>Oh yes - welcome! TLS is important to the IETF and *YOUR*
      contribution is part of our rough consensus.</p>
    <p>Mike</p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
  </body>
</html>

--------------bXYtvcf6vbFLOnMdE1w020l0--