Re: A quick poll about RFC 7221

Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 18 September 2020 00:40 UTC

Return-Path: <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A33F43A0F91 for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 17:40:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sNTuvBx_b9JC for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 17:39:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-x1031.google.com (mail-pj1-x1031.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1031]) (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 BDA5A3A0EC5 for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 17:39:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-x1031.google.com with SMTP id t7so2212625pjd.3 for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 17:39:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=WNRGWnq8sIbsqnEAo11oIlxuBwm5yOEtC2DwEsGBYqM=; b=PC7bYuNloun7CbRIr8tit/3PqNRcd8WKpH8+DYySqdMB3YBxCKZb0cnRFluJDprXpd Jc74QFfRlymBowch3UFjHr9k6YjlrjvgUsBFxFEkm281Yn3M3JtjVrn5yqKMs8ybIVBn FCR6b6RpFKf5f7UP12VA7Ir3J9BMdMU1ivfGHKiQjXCwNFUV/Wy4OHpFrUQrs2t95cNE +/aSYOH6wNA3/i4HtRhwfVjoOXRdy54UowWBUR//cLgruG+YdeeDgY9lXBoas+ojiy0A vqK/WdvIY3DHTfo1luP0JhCAkBrIGN74vlB9pFzLOCopC5NCaqFr+2LHw9U3E/Bn0uys w9UQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=WNRGWnq8sIbsqnEAo11oIlxuBwm5yOEtC2DwEsGBYqM=; b=txmx78PMRaJMilytfnXj297n7NrdtU0AolBp3vrMSdf3fMhIcq2jMx/CBZ6HDgbEIK YRcq/KFl/52G7YDZML3bVo68Cd0u6qpF/9v/qryHvM/CuhNJMPcXWDMWJQitUwXLde+d TBhsUIDAA9d/mQaO4aOuzl3FUeBcRBHXbTvk7QHWoV8jMI2/IQNN1lEnF8bexWA9todL fyePum9Ip7/Eo+5pVevoo3LDS+GuhxgrZSQV+9L0FKt3BNo4EvaLUT/t9xt1hhnenLJn a2k4uLFppdGR672zcfwuz2acxRv7XDgZnl7R3LLzMT092kxj2DMWSUodnyyccpi7IkSB 9o4w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530MwU1f8AIPhonYHone2Q4EaOfrMZhzXCz2m7oR+lSvDc/pXwNA XThX99BfEvXqvSfEVuqItlsOVOWhmoYr0A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzRgG+O5E9J4BrY0R8RIIpmlLV8lxf3e6hdJvDtwsLtUbCRzUOJlBXCfLOdBUoOXwK5aU9njg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:6b85:b029:d2:303:215b with SMTP id p5-20020a1709026b85b02900d20303215bmr3140852plk.48.1600389597911; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 17:39:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (ip72-205-89-216.sb.sd.cox.net. [72.205.89.216]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x20sm826716pfr.190.2020.09.17.17.39.57 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 17 Sep 2020 17:39:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Google-Original-From: Fred Baker <FredBaker.IETF@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: A quick poll about RFC 7221
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 17:39:56 -0700
Message-Id: <4D5CEE7A-2748-4E43-8402-A1FB9441F037@gmail.com>
References: <00e001d68940$bc73db70$355b9250$@olddog.co.uk>
Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <00e001d68940$bc73db70$355b9250$@olddog.co.uk>
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (18A373)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wgchairs/eJTr-uKBnU-OpyV3B7bRHWzCFxc>
X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working Group Chairs <wgchairs.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/wgchairs>, <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/wgchairs/>
List-Post: <mailto:wgchairs@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wgchairs>, <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 00:40:01 -0000

And, it would appear, quickly closed it.

I went and read RFC 7221, saw nothing I disagreed with, and went to respond to your poll. Hmm, it was closed, so now I’m responding.

As to “are documents of this sort useful?”, yes, I believe they are. I’m thinking about doing something similar, probably in the v6ops wiki, because I find myself explaining very basic things repeatedly, and would find it helpful to have a link to point to. In my case, it’s “I have an internet draft that <proposes a new protocol>/<is operationally less than useful>/<etc>; may I have a slot on your agenda?” The rule in v6ops is that agenda slots are handed out to people
   -  with updated drafts (e.g., posted since the recent meeting)
   -  consistent with the working group charter 
   -  that are being discussed on the mailing list 
   -  by people that find them interesting and useful in their networks

not unlike other working groups. I probably write that sentence, or something like it, at least once for every meeting. There are individuals that I have said that to on multiple, even many, occasions.

So, yes, these can be useful. I’m less convinced that they need to be normative. But then RFC 7221 isn’t. It’s informative. 

> On Sep 12, 2020, at 1:10 PM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> Hi WG chairs,
> 
> I'm just curious to see who has read RFC 7221.
> 
> Rather than clutter this list, I made a Doodle poll
> 
> https://doodle.com/poll/2w77cuh5h46vnkhk
> 
> Feel free to respond anonymously (e.g., give your name as "Anon 7" or some
> such) if you like.
> 
> There's nothing more to this than wondering whether RFCs like 7221 get read.
> I may come on later to whether this type of RFC is useful or could be made
> more useful.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Adrian
>