[TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation

Quynh Dang <quynh97@gmail.com> Wed, 15 January 2025 18:03 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 1E157C20795B for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 10:03:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.855
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.855 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FfSP_6F730x1 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 10:03:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12f.google.com (mail-lf1-x12f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12f]) (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 3F840C27133A for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 10:03:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12f.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-5401e6efffcso64067e87.3 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 10:03:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1736964229; x=1737569029; 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=AB0rlV5vlBQldviB/D+Rfc61ab8YNuWnlvDDyEMA95I=; b=G3ZOJdI8MQTwMFiqS94gIP+3XlZ6cruFeuNi9IZzVYmuatU17Of17S6KNH5R6588y/ F+FQHxR0Z84h1hMwm/d7XuAW7Z9HqiztX2ppqHVr42cuIWbV9IMr3d4dqP5aNWJWMEkH iGvMR65+rUIJgI0XhZzJC8y4ViNG15q6d3g1MMmnN3y22fHo5JwbUJ1lyLYilcZNUP0q Q1z/uPIzN6AuG0cSWwElLmRS0lH+jv5Vy5r8/a2qzjZ0xE9Ljax73TWIp0GqyKo8YQRj F1cGgoRd/LUD/MF7txZz958f4IfgLqULJ035WiTE6a/MeAU6ZEpVNn5DQsmS8+oKN/5g epJg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1736964229; x=1737569029; 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=AB0rlV5vlBQldviB/D+Rfc61ab8YNuWnlvDDyEMA95I=; b=MmK6czwzDJc4de7DLe0SCD4YKi3SUfP4Xtay7MGteFSpD/jnGkr3ZM398uMdU8K9Q8 oot6Sa4IGPEKEI5Wm2Ee30CwX1Xzb7NNJzRCImb5ZFwL3aRIP1SKuW6RGZ3kzDWx2tsO AiBlPsrvg122nXz97sTxTxjU8XkDbnCxJq4NyWlCf2tluPzhlmsj7CNRTVloSnaWvOeh EFEwp8sEQRHSlSr4izr6F+n2u0INdmsrRiJtE7zr/x0DputM6OQXGrPInddcUEFOdgdD hIFrOYrkPZegt6XMhwIovgwzIcNo48uPMPZbgKOG9wY350ZhFan2Dmf814xoR4i66AN3 BD4Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yy/X3U+bv9QLv3BoTtTXRdiqLyadOSVgxnRvMOmbRV9Ifq0T1NQ kLFeIC9sv+R08Gb0I+8Xh12SQIU0xNxBeb5um5zbCl5ypfcyWhYkPv1TFu+u9QiH1DB1yOG7ObZ ob+IVk/qODWGM/uGczXsd+CenAeNU2QeC
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGnct8pHoY8R57RXkorB9RIH0ZQrmCppsZucHPop4X8Bt+I81G5buqQ5wadjHLHop eSw4Ojd5Uza++xnmaE1Ejk1f0HBdVOMUBJhGVB3I2ts/iHl44JA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGg1YEJFR4AYEhVHZFrxkMwzj0gRq/BnrQunj2uUCCrT1G/bNaVOVlYZknIYtvJleP+Yxuk1uda6DkHL5yc+1g=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5684:0:b0:542:98bb:566d with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-54298bb588emr7116815e87.15.1736964227663; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 10:03:47 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAE3-qLSe_KU2HkGu-LBGpmF=in4ZHKzotXRQMrO_AfYFv8pNrA@mail.gmail.com> <20250115163905.447729.qmail@cr.yp.to> <CAE3-qLS2462ThM5UVTJ_NukYEXAjR4teBhdNityj+acmqzueXg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1mTWgSR-EymNW2cv-xbYAJr_Lk3nHypQDb6_hC-D47CEw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1mTWgSR-EymNW2cv-xbYAJr_Lk3nHypQDb6_hC-D47CEw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Quynh Dang <quynh97@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:03:30 -0500
X-Gm-Features: AbW1kvaRbuTRXSSc6eAI3D1paQYPMexBQHdJFgrOTGhu5C1wYVrIIC-FMK-LNGk
Message-ID: <CAE3-qLT9--E5RZGexPW9e63P6kOmzgyVEbtU1o8gGyqXU5wqpw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c7133f062bc27fba"
Message-ID-Hash: KVFFJ6CGYAZMRDLO2KC76UDHXJFYXNJQ
X-Message-ID-Hash: KVFFJ6CGYAZMRDLO2KC76UDHXJFYXNJQ
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
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/Qs6ZaCOr9-xH0NvJe849zHHC-sc>
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 Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 12:47 PM Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:

> Although it is, as ekr has pointed out, not normative, nevertheless RFC
> 7282 provides a solid process for coming to rough consensus. This method
> does not involve voting, and I think operates in the way that DJB proposes.
> I certainly would not consider vote counting to be a valid way to determine
> consensus, because it doesn't inform the working group in any way—it's
> really just a count of how many bodies a particular proponent was able to
> throw at the problem.
>
> As for what the minimum number of people involved should be, that's also
> really hard to state objectively because some working groups get vastly
> more participation than others: what works for one will not work for
> another.
>
> I'm not suggesting that we make RFC 7282 normative; what I am suggesting
> is that it's a good basis for reasoning about this problem, and we do
> really already know how to solve this problem. Unfortunately it does
> require that WG leadership and IETF leadership actually put the effort in
> to accurately judge the consensus.
>

How the chair "accurately judge the consensus." and to avoid the problem I
mentioned in the previous email : "So consensus calls can be made based on
inconsistent "policies" or "unknown rules/policies" and many people might
feel that they are treated unfairly in many consensus calls and they could
have a question in their head: why did the chairs do that to me ?" ?

If we don't think the problem above is a problem, then we don't have to
change anything.  But if we think that problem is a problem, then I don't
see any better way to take care of it other than defining a minimum
percentage of votes to have the consensus.

Regards,
Quynh.




> If there really is no better reason to choose solution A as opposed to
> solution B as the number of votes, then the decision is effectively
> arbitrary anyway, and a coin flip would also work (and this has been done
> in the past in such situations).
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 6:39 PM Quynh Dang <quynh97@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 11:40 AM D. J. Bernstein <djb@cr.yp.to> wrote:
>>
>>> Quynh Dang writes:
>>> > D. J. Bernstein <djb@cr.yp.to> wrote:
>>> > > Quynh Dang writes:
>>> > > > Any result will hurt one group (can't be both groups have what they
>>> > > > want).
>>> > > BCP 54: "IETF participants use their best engineering judgment to
>>> find
>>> > > the best solution for the whole Internet, not just the best solution
>>> for
>>> > > any particular network, technology, vendor, or user."
>>> > The key point in that policy is "the best solution for the whole
>>> Internet".
>>> > So, in my example, one group thinks A is the one and the other group
>>> thinks
>>> > B is the one.
>>>
>>> That wouldn't be a case of some group not getting what it wants. It
>>> would be everyone wanting what's best for the Internet, but not enough
>>> analysis having been carried out yet to know what that is. The usual way
>>> out of such cases is via a closer look at the engineering.
>>>
>>> The "not just" part of the above BCP 54 quote is recognizing that
>>> vendors have an incentive to push for what's best for those vendors.
>>> That's a much more obvious reason for conflicts---and if one starts by
>>> thinking of IETF as a way to manage conflicts of vendor interests then
>>> votes might seem to be a natural way to make decisions. But the policy
>>> is saying that IETF's goal is instead to do what's best from an
>>> engineering perspective for the Internet as a whole.
>>>
>>
>> As discussed previously, "what's best from an engineering perspective",
>> is there the decision maker such as a judge to say A is the right one, not
>> B or give a verdict such as this patent covers this, but not that ?  That
>> is why the IETF requires "rough" consensus.
>>
>>
>>> Votes don't help the engineering process; they disrupt it. Voting is not
>>> how IETF is supposed to work in the first place. As Dave Clark famously
>>> said in https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/24.pdf: "We reject: kings,
>>> presidents and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and running code."
>>
>>
>> I have not advocated against "rough consensus".
>>
>> The problem is that "rough consensus" is so broadly or vaguely defined.
>> So consensus calls can be made based on inconsistent "policies" or "unknown
>> rules/policies" and many people might feel that they are treated unfairly
>> in many consensus calls and they could have a question in their head: why
>> did the chairs do that to me ?  So the problem makes the job of the chairs
>> so hard and stressful.
>>
>> Defining a minimum percentage of votes to have  the consensus would take
>> care of the problem and the chairs at the IETF would love that.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Quynh.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> ---D. J. Bernstein
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to tls-leave@ietf.org
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to tls-leave@ietf.org
>>
>