IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Sat, 23 May 2020 02:31 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 13D043A0DF2 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 May 2020 19:31:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 Xdw-1ijZM-KK for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 May 2020 19:31:54 -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 068E33A0DDC for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 May 2020 19:31:53 -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 CFFF5B074A; Sat, 23 May 2020 02:31:49 +0000 (UTC)
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>, tsvwg@ietf.org
Cc: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Date: Sat, 23 May 2020 02:31:48 +0000
Message-ID: <2639838.YKd0F3rF8o@linux-9daj>
Organization: none
In-Reply-To: <30C37177-5C1F-440C-969A-A7AA33E1744D@eggert.org>
References: <202005221335.04MDZEg5022015@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> <30C37177-5C1F-440C-969A-A7AA33E1744D@eggert.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/FVmp7_w5sjl9fWX6uk8RdHw3whE>
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: Sat, 23 May 2020 02:31:56 -0000

On Friday, 22 May 2020 14:25:21 UTC Lars Eggert wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2020-5-22, at 16:35, Rodney W. Grimes <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> wrote:
> >> We were never given a ?none of the above? choice.
> > 
> > Which was actually itemized by the IETF Chair Alisha Cooper at the
> > very end of the Interim Meeting, I was rather shocked to not see
> > it as an option, and hench my vote was made with a comment that
> > I had been "boxed into a choice."
> 
> you can always refrain from responding to the poll?

no. after the interrim meeting and the ietf chair's explicit comments, the 
right response was not silence, but a protest. i didn't realize this or i 
would have done so earlier.

the case for "something has got to be done, now" has not been made, and so the 
assertion that "both inbound and outbound are things that could be done, so we 
must pick one of them" is a nonsequitur.

-- 
Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email