IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] dispute (Re: Results of consensus call on ECT(1) usage)

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Mon, 25 May 2020 00:20 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@redbarn.org>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECE3D3A0E37 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 May 2020 17:20:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 OEeAEF-2mbPA for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 May 2020 17:19:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [24.104.150.213]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E82E23A0E34 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 May 2020 17:19:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linux-9daj.localnet (vixp1.redbarn.org [24.104.150.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F395EB074A; Mon, 25 May 2020 00:19:54 +0000 (UTC)
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
To: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 00:19:54 +0000
Message-ID: <4750050.T8oUkQ3nkP@linux-9daj>
Organization: none
In-Reply-To: <59853a16-9c83-bcf2-7f1d-49bddffab9b8@mti-systems.com>
References: <d182f539-e0a2-e924-9556-db6577f47357@mti-systems.com> <3228077.bNJ4EoEDyu@linux-9daj> <59853a16-9c83-bcf2-7f1d-49bddffab9b8@mti-systems.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/5SMzBoEjhWuyBVjAGa1mTJHdOJY>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] dispute (Re: Results of consensus call on ECT(1) usage)
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 00:20:05 -0000

On Friday, 22 May 2020 20:15:41 UTC Wesley Eddy wrote:
> Hello, this is my own attempt to answer your questions/concerns, not
> necessarily matching what other co-chairs or our ADs would say, though
> we did coordinate on evaluating the consensus call, and the original
> statement of results.
> 
> ...
> 
> I hope this is all more clear and addresses your questions/concerns, and
> sorry if it wasn't evident in the original response we chairs had
> coordinated on.

it is clear, but it is your unofficial (no-hats) position, and also, it does 
not address my concerns. what's our next step, per RFC 2026?

-- 
Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email