[TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation
Quynh Dang <quynh97@gmail.com> Wed, 15 January 2025 23:43 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 05619C09C236 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 15:43:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.854
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.854 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, 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 DiC2X_PRndTb for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 15:43:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x136.google.com (mail-lf1-x136.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::136]) (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 EE344C1F8BD5 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 15:43:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x136.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-540201cfedbso268426e87.3 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 15:43:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1736984610; x=1737589410; 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=oqNZ5ozuxf00712+xOc8HtKEhfYqMRx//nRydNLjTH4=; b=IEEY+VKirx9A9mx9ij9kTMAFDS2eJBRc8cwmS2PfoONP9vn+lk5mAX6x8RJB/GqqA6 AwWAp1iA8pFISeKIfT0uALxu+ZDykVnofZDNAsdSUly7lrkRMKuZEJJF0h9oGsMwoYRx BsZcPixPLr7qH2Rh0Wc5zLEfclF1LUAwp9xLmXpiSvTYi1EAVkEUTaXVNG8v2YcSx19H WMrFqDW1SugifNKuQ41ekM4rJmLvps0LP3L8G7y8lSnOgUNEAD2wSDv8oHACuxa1kACn 8Oy/W2lSTBgXbkS3jSlPp+ksTplqJHin2OV4Q/y5D6OeFZubYqSVspYyEef162MiUjnm 6ffA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1736984610; x=1737589410; 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=oqNZ5ozuxf00712+xOc8HtKEhfYqMRx//nRydNLjTH4=; b=hqH7aZvAtul48BjYnPqeCkIH8uJ4ZEbWdGxlBUs9qRLfaEhbhbFoTU+pC0XUfeBza7 htSaCV8pOCqyQF+GA9ND09Q45qB5mtRDFTKPDMIiPTaRx2UDDnzQdUyikEcxa9kPBYG9 2Y4roW1nWiovObg49UXapnhaYSw/Q/fHPAKtDl2ebZW74cpTeSUbUWngC6isemTL8+u/ qAXxcMgNHASGd9GS+6talYDCdATKMvzAyH9xy/VGmRTM3HywC5bju7tJdjg+NrdNttrm CJDRQEqs/56XwkwywHvOzxbM1jHypcRpyow/gKjZBbmX1h7Vr0FB4bwl79dsh1ESmbf5 mL/A==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWfGuQOSu6SSVBP7eU8nE+TshltgT9c6UEPuK+SlePzMHfVvRUSAnBH1pEGltbVVNyID9w=@ietf.org
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YypsQf2bAn+HFMi5lM+3eMLlOwIszowrrnTh/BTX9NG2lXwqmqs DPMoQSJ/f639OlglVGTael8xkhtmP8zMS+4NDgkQK8aHE3MBztg0VgAgUsG54v/BMSYXgG3NmN4 BYw//iuB3425r0lvfICp/DfMi3by8rA==
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncvWl2uQeCygawwN0gAT7+nQ3mC+/6wl6TyRbbZvfArkWXXN4mW36BLEFyX8V/o pyflzet21h9HUkZ4OG9biKsXuaL/PIBL7NyrHH2Q=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHYtVml9xI89FIh3S3di9lKHvV/0bS5ClfwQhy4lYi6P8KSzpNlR2I7A3dnSnlelQ9DhCXABYuEduNlfdEH55s=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:3e28:b0:53e:3aaa:5c7c with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-542845d1687mr10936494e87.51.1736984609632; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 15:43:29 -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> <CAE3-qLT9--E5RZGexPW9e63P6kOmzgyVEbtU1o8gGyqXU5wqpw@mail.gmail.com> <SN7PR14MB649213AB97E4BCB4888F531683192@SN7PR14MB6492.namprd14.prod.outlook.com> <CAE3-qLTVFtvQg+2w_Zk38Mxb2E9ureEK1jzFgZORXcFWgWKd2w@mail.gmail.com> <CACsn0cn_aKEmPLm2NoErHvB_t3JAeeNdg-Sf9NchDzbJ+rD8rw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACsn0cn_aKEmPLm2NoErHvB_t3JAeeNdg-Sf9NchDzbJ+rD8rw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Quynh Dang <quynh97@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 18:43:12 -0500
X-Gm-Features: AbW1kvaoZFIPTFp68Vx_BCWD6WWUqobDVRaDdTR5aU4HEPkIexPqq6kERe2FHwk
Message-ID: <CAE3-qLRrg4E7gJwaLK9V3=W_M6GJ7Xz6h+8+VAvC_y=Ekcg3KQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a33fb7062bc73e46"
Message-ID-Hash: LMNRDHAF7UGZKO7NLINO3CXDIWI7CPFK
X-Message-ID-Hash: LMNRDHAF7UGZKO7NLINO3CXDIWI7CPFK
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 List <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/_jQ366alzVEcf9U3nuGLqspYhso>
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 6:31 PM Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2025, 3:15 PM Quynh Dang <quynh97@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 1:27 PM Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek@digicert.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Consensus has nothing to do with number of votes. >>> >> >> I have not discussed how the current consensus calls work. Filippo >> Valsorda sent an email which basically said "the current practice of >> consensus calls are so hard and painful sometimes" yesterday. So, I >> discussed some ideas (change suggestions) to improve the situation. >> > > I don't think that's what Fillipo said. Consensus is not the same as > consensus calls to gauge it. > I never indicated they are the same. Maybe my wording was not clear. I meant it is hard to decide whether or not there is a consensus on some matter by a clear and consistent rule sometimes. > > It's also not possible for the TLS WG to change those rules but it is > possible to address some of the issues on the list. > >> >> >> >>> We don’t vote, and we shouldn’t. We also shouldn’t disadvantage those >>> who can’t attend sessions live for whatever reason. >>> >> >> I recommend you re(read) my second email on this thread. If the >> consensus calls are based on votes (my suggestion) and they are done over >> emails, then how to prevent one person using many emails to vote? That was >> where the suggestion of requiring the consensus calls to be done at the >> live meetings and only the participants online or in person can vote. The >> ones who participate in another IETF meeting at the same time ( a meeting >> conflict) can cast their votes later. >> >> >> >>> The existing rules cover this pretty well, imo. >>> >> >> Good for you! >> >> Regards, >> Quynh. >> >> >>> >>> >>> The reason we appoint technically competent chairs and directors, and >>> those chairs and directors spend quite a bit of time on this stuff, is >>> because it can’t be handled by arbitrary rules or just counting. And we >>> have appeals procedures, too. If you ever have any questions about a >>> particular consensus call or believe consensus is being declared when it >>> hasn’t been achieved, please feel free to publicly or privately reach out >>> to a chair or area director. >>> >> >>> >>> -Tim >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Quynh Dang <quynh97@gmail.com> >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 15, 2025 1:04 PM >>> *To:* Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> >>> *Cc:* tls@ietf.org >>> *Subject:* [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to tls-leave@ietf.org >> >
- [TLS] Changing WG Mail List Reputation Sean Turner
- [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation Arnaud Taddei
- [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation David Benjamin
- [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation Viktor Dukhovni
- [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation Salz, Rich
- [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation Peter Gutmann
- [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation Tim Hollebeek
- [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation Bob Beck
- [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation Joseph Salowey
- [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation Salz, Rich
- [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation Joseph Salowey
- [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation Sean Turner
- [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation Rob Sayre
- [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation Sean Turner
- [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation Filippo Valsorda
- [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation Dang, Quynh H. (Fed)
- [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation Bob Beck
- [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation Watson Ladd
- [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation John Levine
- [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation Peter Gutmann
- [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation Dennis Jackson
- [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation Quynh Dang
- [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation D. J. Bernstein
- [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation Quynh Dang
- [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation D. J. Bernstein
- [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation Quynh Dang
- [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation Alicja Kario
- [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation Ted Lemon
- [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation Quynh Dang
- [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation Tim Hollebeek
- [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation Tim Bray
- [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation Eric Rescorla
- [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation Quynh Dang
- [TLS] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Changing WG Mail List Re… Andrei Popov
- [TLS] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Changing WG Mail List Re… Quynh Dang
- [TLS] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Changing WG Mail List Re… Andrei Popov
- [TLS] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Changing WG Mail List Re… Quynh Dang
- [TLS] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Changing WG Mail List Re… Andrei Popov
- [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation Ted Lemon
- [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation Quynh Dang
- [TLS] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Changing WG Mail List Re… Roman Danyliw
- [TLS] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Changing WG Mail List Re… Quynh Dang
- [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation Watson Ladd
- [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation Quynh Dang
- [TLS] Re: Changing WG Mail List Reputation Watson Ladd
- [TLS] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Changing WG Mail List Re… Quynh Dang