IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> Mon, 25 May 2020 15:15 UTC

Return-Path: <wes@mti-systems.com>
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 F313D3A0D39 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 May 2020 08:15:48 -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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mti-systems-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 DV1QFWjDB0jc for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 May 2020 08:15:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x733.google.com (mail-qk1-x733.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::733]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE77D3A0CD9 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 May 2020 08:15:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x733.google.com with SMTP id b6so17671387qkh.11 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 May 2020 08:15:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mti-systems-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=qbPVjeQhAdf3lC9YkeTgcetuqPKz9W/OzYAeirOv5VI=; b=uxa/KI/XWT4O2caZsGli4l6iFXe9SwOOV0tWigbNwIPbdJLitj/YwUokejtdUIr/Zv +UqKo4nKs940HkWwuYIRShWxKTKojSieUUuyHQ5G1OUXz19gbdMx+YqRRSoBUp/O+Xd8 CwjjWb6Wtu9B8kN+/VNun237/3SJUuQdLABpsE9kwAT0fR7xhK8aMIz/s28faCV4rmmr K7d/BW4Ah/0VNRVoQ/HBToHx0BF4Q4WXdSzhcut4HweNxBDbih6PxySweDjgcdkY5zvK aJIsTCisIp7eo4oU1WI+nZMAnn3nYtINWKM3JWdXNeiz0z3GD1PZR0PDcFMUPl2VLw4k MQ3A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=qbPVjeQhAdf3lC9YkeTgcetuqPKz9W/OzYAeirOv5VI=; b=pX56n4MvwGS7ApRL/LZXPnWPT4K7Duqu5ky5zCU9ez4xSh2LMmwkHDa5zHEdY1Lmqq u+mmdWm1MtjNplZH9t3QMzaIDGNsEBXQFKCVmu6e++TfBotusLLrqUVzkT3vAkrjILlj lN48Mi4Jka7BcNaOUpeCXIDEBaTxYiV4JVEoUhlvKOKUGGO+lqSYvO2We+MHFBlYq1sN B+Ui8hSOimS+L37toyUloZi+h3eQZ4I8nmbL83gvfqz9f6x1rV2T3QTWLVOUOt1goGG0 wiMDX1bVXiASa67oNv4dbPmv/QUovqiudCOMvOJ8+i5Cr0GtwXyuYFngCNFImPrm7pvc pBXg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5304ofJUlUSKcrH+FTKvC/IP+x/l570BLAsvRwHRLSCu23uNMy4Y eT9lKbmDoFAWh1FV2eHeqr2YApCVOmx4kg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyDwugn/1a3pl14hgvNbdcfx7engWzbF1z+ez0W7racwkeQOtFYI4VoTVj9NYHUASbEC9Mm3w==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:132a:: with SMTP id p10mr27528639qkj.494.1590419744393; Mon, 25 May 2020 08:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.12] (user-12l31c7.cable.mindspring.com. [69.81.133.135]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o66sm8765484qka.60.2020.05.25.08.15.43 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 25 May 2020 08:15:43 -0700 (PDT)
To: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
References: <d182f539-e0a2-e924-9556-db6577f47357@mti-systems.com> <3228077.bNJ4EoEDyu@linux-9daj> <59853a16-9c83-bcf2-7f1d-49bddffab9b8@mti-systems.com> <4750050.T8oUkQ3nkP@linux-9daj>
From: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Message-ID: <623e9a5d-c0d3-b7c7-2baa-df93460f189a@mti-systems.com>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 11:15:41 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4750050.T8oUkQ3nkP@linux-9daj>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/dx4vnlhnyjChBW8NEZcwZeM4cg8>
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 15:15:49 -0000

On 5/24/2020 8:19 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> 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?


It's my official position; I only said it wasn't coordinated with other 
co-chairs and ADs (because I wanted to provide a more timely response 
than coordination among 5 people would allow).

I'm happy to try to answer reasonable follow-up questions, of course.  
Right now, I'm curious why you don't think your concerns were addressed, 
since you asked the chairs to explain two things (why choice 3 wasn't 
the outcome, and why a timely choice as important), both of which I've 
tried to explain.  If there was a part of that explanation you want to 
follow up on, please do!

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email