From nobody Tue May 5 14:38:52 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4849E3A0BF0 for ; Tue, 5 May 2020 14:38:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.101 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.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 Qg7LcWveUMQM for ; Tue, 5 May 2020 14:38:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EUR05-VI1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-vi1eur05on2058.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.21.58]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13E9E3A0BD1 for ; Tue, 5 May 2020 14:38:47 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=G1wwnUTSLb6+aAzSbVbLjWO6gcxpxQg4nNbtjLyYh8ZJBBuWUs8v93O39hn0e4sbl1ud5b4MXrrDmEdc4bw9aeGefNYZL6c+mRS1TcXJbkxcFHy66eoXAXYMK5qR667ZN9yspIdFbbiaS52bHVrJ0v+f9vO9egLGwm+3JU8zETSjWGfZ+pcRwOTjXqUowuui01iobYU9FDy/rvhi+d4Aypig3cEv8GPdd1wervO2I7orvjQi+vYU6n7cvKPyPRvi6vWgee6oF+tdRXvCLBSjRhKt8lgrifjPEK/5DtfPQbQnjUEk8RFSpOHkDitQPUxERaFH5WYkrfu3dmFIkytAtA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=lxuBcc1qHQvF3mu10VtTnAa2Ha6C8x1jX5KbGQFLDcs=; b=Z49U9irG3wnknwLNrwexczVpDyOQ8SmkRK8FDQX7GhsFYtckv/Kbswx/aGQ+kQ+0gdMVKphHulrgvq+7imqnIS/ZM2//GK5XCdjlalBWAGfqHK87KlClqV3sJ/cS9yaiNSFrMox/W4S+mUyo8KdTiRmtmo09bdx+UW9P0DhXiHW1xtNKtysBETN/QeegdBlFffJGgI3oqNqp2qVGcr35FZ6Ia/NTQPuwRerSOZaSdwlTqDMqtEkEByLb7DU6S+CHUlahE8ABBen2qHhp8tVbCNz3DCGPvj3pBia8lxYwkrZanEpDhpGrar/RjogwZkGFyTkORzYCOLEkCC3iTqtz5g== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ericsson.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=ericsson.com; dkim=pass header.d=ericsson.com; arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ericsson.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=lxuBcc1qHQvF3mu10VtTnAa2Ha6C8x1jX5KbGQFLDcs=; b=PgZ0I4dQw2huGA2mgUabNOpDvf0queSwYaa5psP0c7hfvlw6QeNzRqvNB25yCiZ91sIO4I//GHRZ8769aNNIxwXMWZGYw54BoSSJZjaVsMb+HUwJY8uQfwULMgZiQXpJ2fmyAXZkTntfTok962QzPsZvDD6noTU8Rh1ub7tBTtc= Received: from HE1PR0702MB3818.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:7:8c::18) by AMXSPR01MB0001.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:209:9a::31) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2979.11; Tue, 5 May 2020 21:38:45 +0000 Received: from HE1PR0702MB3818.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::f0bb:b1ae:bf22:4526]) by HE1PR0702MB3818.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::f0bb:b1ae:bf22:4526%6]) with mapi id 15.20.2979.025; Tue, 5 May 2020 21:38:45 +0000 From: Francesca Palombini To: "gendispatch@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Reminder: Survey on planning for possible online IETF meetings Thread-Index: AQHWItMI3sTRoI/sR06quN6A10+TDqiaJvoA Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 21:38:45 +0000 Message-ID: <1D2A2949-E5ED-4491-AF5F-A28B8F9987FE@ericsson.com> References: <158857581528.28405.17372040856513106617@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-GB X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.36.20041300 authentication-results: ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=ericsson.com; x-originating-ip: [158.174.219.143] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 73ac42e1-2cba-4b35-b634-08d7f13cb07b x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: AMXSPR01MB0001: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000; x-forefront-prvs: 0394259C80 x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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 x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:HE1PR0702MB3818.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(4636009)(376002)(346002)(136003)(366004)(396003)(39860400002)(33430700001)(71200400001)(66476007)(66446008)(66946007)(66556008)(6916009)(44832011)(6512007)(76116006)(316002)(2616005)(5660300002)(478600001)(64756008)(36756003)(966005)(6486002)(186003)(2906002)(86362001)(8936002)(33656002)(9326002)(26005)(33440700001)(6506007)(8676002)(53546011)(166002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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 x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1D2A2949E5ED4491AF5FA28B8F9987FEericssoncom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: ericsson.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 73ac42e1-2cba-4b35-b634-08d7f13cb07b X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 05 May 2020 21:38:45.6504 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 92e84ceb-fbfd-47ab-be52-080c6b87953f X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: dux2Og4w0ttLEjVXyxL4RcBNWgSBlNHgdUFOmEvwR6XdVy+4MyKy0hnrQiA/S5n55dpaE1MWOPs5+g3+oOWuLTCMDvAavF+MsoHinWGS+e14sWVnlfhljheUeY5/3amT X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AMXSPR01MB0001 Archived-At: Subject: [Gendispatch] FW: Reminder: Survey on planning for possible online IETF meetings X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: General Area Dispatch List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 May 2020 21:38:51 -0000 --_000_1D2A2949E5ED4491AF5FA28B8F9987FEericssoncom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SGksDQoNClBsZWFzZSB0YWtlIGEgbW9tZW50IHRvIGFuc3dlciB0aGlzIHN1cnZleSBpZiB5b3Ug cGxhbiBvbiBhdHRlbmRpbmcgZnV0dXJlIG9ubGluZSBJRVRGIG1lZXRpbmdzLg0KDQpGcmFuY2Vz Y2ENCg0KDQpGcm9tOiBXR0NoYWlycyA8d2djaGFpcnMtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZz4gb24gYmVo YWxmIG9mIEFsaXNzYSBDb29wZXIgPGFsaXNzYUBjb29wZXJ3LmluPg0KRGF0ZTogVHVlc2RheSwg NSBNYXkgMjAyMCBhdCAxMzo0OA0KVG86IElFVEYgV0cgQ2hhaXJzIDx3Z2NoYWlyc0BpZXRmLm9y Zz4NClN1YmplY3Q6IEZ3ZDogUmVtaW5kZXI6IFN1cnZleSBvbiBwbGFubmluZyBmb3IgcG9zc2li bGUgb25saW5lIElFVEYgbWVldGluZ3MNCg0KUGxlYXNlIGNpcmN1bGF0ZSB0aGlzIHRvIHlvdXIg d29ya2luZyBncm91cCBsaXN0cy4gVGhlIHN1cnZleSBkYXRhIHdpbGwgYmUgdmVyeSBpbXBvcnRh bnQgYXMgd2UgcGxhbiBmdXR1cmUgSUVURiBtZWV0aW5ncy4NCg0KVGhhbmtzLA0KQWxpc3NhDQoN Cg0KQmVnaW4gZm9yd2FyZGVkIG1lc3NhZ2U6DQoNCkZyb206IElFVEYgRXhlY3V0aXZlIERpcmVj dG9yIDxleGVjLWRpcmVjdG9yQGlldGYub3JnPG1haWx0bzpleGVjLWRpcmVjdG9yQGlldGYub3Jn Pj4NClN1YmplY3Q6IFJlbWluZGVyOiBTdXJ2ZXkgb24gcGxhbm5pbmcgZm9yIHBvc3NpYmxlIG9u bGluZSBJRVRGIG1lZXRpbmdzDQpEYXRlOiBNYXkgNCwgMjAyMCBhdCAzOjAzOjM1IEFNIEVEVA0K VG86ICJJRVRGIEFubm91bmNlbWVudCBMaXN0IiA8aWV0Zi1hbm5vdW5jZUBpZXRmLm9yZzxtYWls dG86aWV0Zi1hbm5vdW5jZUBpZXRmLm9yZz4+DQpSZXBseS1UbzogaWV0ZjEwOHBsYW5uaW5nQGll dGYub3JnPG1haWx0bzppZXRmMTA4cGxhbm5pbmdAaWV0Zi5vcmc+DQoNClRoaXMgaXMgYSByZW1p bmRlciB0aGF0IHdlIG5lZWQgdGhlIElFVEYgY29tbXVuaXR5IHRvIGhlbHAgdXMgcGxhbiBmb3Ig dGhlIHBvc3NpYmlsaXR5IHRoYXQgb25lIG9yIG1vcmUgdXBjb21pbmcgSUVURiBtZWV0aW5ncyBp biAyMDIwIGFuZCBwb3NzaWJseSAyMDIxIG1heSBub3QgYmUgYWJsZSB0byBnbyBhaGVhZCBpbiBw ZXJzb24uICBZb3UgY2FuIGhlbHAgdXMgd2l0aCB0aGlzIGJ5IGZpbGxpbmcgb3V0IHRoZSBmb2xs b3dpbmcgc3VydmV5Og0KDQpodHRwczovL3d3dy5zdXJ2ZXltb25rZXkuY29tL3IvNTMyOEZGSg0K DQpTbyBmYXIgd2UgaGF2ZSAxMTQgcmVzcG9uc2VzIGFuZCB3ZSB3b3VsZCBpZGVhbGx5IGxpa2Ug NTAwIG9yIG1vcmUuDQoNClRoZSBzdXJ2ZXkgY29udGFpbnMgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBwYWdlcyBh bmQgd2lsbCB0YWtlIDE1LTIwIG1pbnV0ZXMgdG8gY29tcGxldGU6DQoNCjEuIFdlbGNvbWUNCjIu IE9ubGluZSBJRVRGIDEwNyBhbmQgdGhlIHN1YnNlcXVlbnQgdmlydHVhbCBpbnRlcmltcw0KMy4g UmVwbGFjaW5nIGEgY2FuY2VsbGVkIGluLXBlcnNvbiBtZWV0aW5nDQo0LiBPbmxpbmUgbWVldGlu ZyBmb3JtYXQgYW5kIHRpbWV6b25lDQo1LiBSZXBsaWNhdGluZyBodW1taW5nDQo2LiBSZXBsaWNh dGluZyB0aGUgaGFsbHdheSBlbnZpcm9ubWVudA0KNy4gRmVlcw0KOC4gVGhhbmtzIGFuZCBhbnl0 aGluZyBlbHNlDQoNCldlIHJ1biB0aGUgc3VydmV5IGluIGFub255bW91cyBtb2RlIHdoaWNoIG1l YW5zIHRoYXQgd2Ugb25seSBzZWUgZGF0YSB0aGF0IHlvdSBleHBsaWNpdGx5IHByb3ZpZGUuDQoN ClRoYW5rIHlvdSBpbiBhZHZhbmNlIGZvciB5b3VyIGhlbHAuDQoNCi0tDQpBbGlzc2EgQ29vcGVy LCBJRVRGIENoYWlyDQpKYXkgRGFsZXksIElFVEYgRXhlY3V0aXZlIERpcmVjdG9yDQpDb2xpbiBQ ZXJraW5zLCBJUlRGIENoYWlyDQoNCl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fDQpJRVRGLUFubm91bmNlIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KSUVURi1Bbm5vdW5jZUBp ZXRmLm9yZw0KaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9pZXRmLWFubm91 bmNlDQoNCg== --_000_1D2A2949E5ED4491AF5FA28B8F9987FEericssoncom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <34844BA059675846AF4266246D7888A5@eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6bz0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6b2ZmaWNlIiB4 bWxuczp3PSJ1cm46c2NoZW1hcy1taWNyb3NvZnQtY29tOm9mZmljZTp3b3JkIiB4bWxuczptPSJo dHRwOi8vc2NoZW1hcy5taWNyb3NvZnQuY29tL29mZmljZS8yMDA0LzEyL29tbWwiIHhtbG5zPSJo dHRwOi8vd3d3LnczLm9yZy9UUi9SRUMtaHRtbDQwIj4NCjxoZWFkPg0KPG1ldGEgaHR0cC1lcXVp dj0iQ29udGVudC1UeXBlIiBjb250ZW50PSJ0ZXh0L2h0bWw7IGNoYXJzZXQ9dXRmLTgiPg0KPG1l dGEgbmFtZT0iR2VuZXJhdG9yIiBjb250ZW50PSJNaWNyb3NvZnQgV29yZCAxNSAoZmlsdGVyZWQg bWVkaXVtKSI+DQo8c3R5bGU+PCEtLQ0KLyogRm9udCBEZWZpbml0aW9ucyAqLw0KQGZvbnQtZmFj ZQ0KCXtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FtYnJpYSBNYXRoIjsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDQgNSAzIDUgNCA2 IDMgMiA0O30NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6Q2FsaWJyaTsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToy IDE1IDUgMiAyIDIgNCAzIDIgNDt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJIZWx2ZXRp Y2EgTmV1ZSI7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6MiAwIDUgMyAwIDAgMCAyIDAgNDt9DQovKiBTdHlsZSBEZWZp bml0aW9ucyAqLw0KcC5Nc29Ob3JtYWwsIGxpLk1zb05vcm1hbCwgZGl2Lk1zb05vcm1hbA0KCXtt YXJnaW46MGNtOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206LjAwMDFwdDsNCglmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0Ow0K CWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIixzYW5zLXNlcmlmO30NCmE6bGluaywgc3Bhbi5Nc29IeXBl cmxpbmsNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXByaW9yaXR5Ojk5Ow0KCWNvbG9yOmJsdWU7DQoJdGV4dC1kZWNv cmF0aW9uOnVuZGVybGluZTt9DQpzcGFuLkVtYWlsU3R5bGUxOQ0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtdHlwZTpw ZXJzb25hbC1yZXBseTsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsc2Fucy1zZXJpZjsNCgljb2xv cjp3aW5kb3d0ZXh0O30NCi5Nc29DaHBEZWZhdWx0DQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS10eXBlOmV4cG9ydC1v bmx5Ow0KCWZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7fQ0KQHBhZ2UgV29yZFNlY3Rpb24xDQoJe3NpemU6NjEy LjBwdCA3OTIuMHB0Ow0KCW1hcmdpbjo3Mi4wcHQgNzIuMHB0IDcyLjBwdCA3Mi4wcHQ7fQ0KZGl2 LldvcmRTZWN0aW9uMQ0KCXtwYWdlOldvcmRTZWN0aW9uMTt9DQotLT48L3N0eWxlPg0KPC9oZWFk Pg0KPGJvZHkgbGFuZz0iRU4tR0IiIGxpbms9ImJsdWUiIHZsaW5rPSJwdXJwbGUiPg0KPGRpdiBj bGFzcz0iV29yZFNlY3Rpb24xIj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJj b2xvcjpibGFjayI+SGksPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1h bCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImNvbG9yOmJsYWNrIj4mbmJzcDs8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+ DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iY29sb3I6YmxhY2siPlBsZWFzZSB0 YWtlIGEgbW9tZW50IHRvIGFuc3dlciB0aGlzIHN1cnZleSBpZiB5b3UgcGxhbiBvbiBhdHRlbmRp bmcgZnV0dXJlIG9ubGluZSBJRVRGIG1lZXRpbmdzLjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxw IGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJjb2xvcjpibGFjayI+Jm5ic3A7PG86cD48 L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImNvbG9y OmJsYWNrIj5GcmFuY2VzY2E8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9y bWFsIj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0ibXNvLWZhcmVhc3QtbGFuZ3VhZ2U6RU4tVVMiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7 PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJtc28t ZmFyZWFzdC1sYW5ndWFnZTpFTi1VUyI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPGRp diBzdHlsZT0iYm9yZGVyOm5vbmU7Ym9yZGVyLXRvcDpzb2xpZCAjQjVDNERGIDEuMHB0O3BhZGRp bmc6My4wcHQgMGNtIDBjbSAwY20iPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCIgc3R5bGU9Im1hcmdp bi1sZWZ0OjM2LjBwdCI+PGI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMi4wcHQ7Y29sb3I6Ymxh Y2siPkZyb206DQo8L3NwYW4+PC9iPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTIuMHB0O2NvbG9y OmJsYWNrIj5XR0NoYWlycyAmbHQ7d2djaGFpcnMtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZyZndDsgb24gYmVo YWxmIG9mIEFsaXNzYSBDb29wZXIgJmx0O2FsaXNzYUBjb29wZXJ3LmluJmd0Ozxicj4NCjxiPkRh dGU6IDwvYj5UdWVzZGF5LCA1IE1heSAyMDIwIGF0IDEzOjQ4PGJyPg0KPGI+VG86IDwvYj5JRVRG IFdHIENoYWlycyAmbHQ7d2djaGFpcnNAaWV0Zi5vcmcmZ3Q7PGJyPg0KPGI+U3ViamVjdDogPC9i PkZ3ZDogUmVtaW5kZXI6IFN1cnZleSBvbiBwbGFubmluZyBmb3IgcG9zc2libGUgb25saW5lIElF VEYgbWVldGluZ3M8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFz cz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIiBzdHlsZT0ibWFyZ2luLWxlZnQ6MzYuMHB0Ij48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpw PjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCIgc3R5bGU9Im1hcmdpbi1sZWZ0OjM2 LjBwdCI+UGxlYXNlIGNpcmN1bGF0ZSB0aGlzIHRvIHlvdXIgd29ya2luZyBncm91cCBsaXN0cy4g VGhlIHN1cnZleSBkYXRhIHdpbGwgYmUgdmVyeSBpbXBvcnRhbnQgYXMgd2UgcGxhbiBmdXR1cmUg SUVURiBtZWV0aW5ncy4NCjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3Jt YWwiIHN0eWxlPSJtYXJnaW4tbGVmdDozNi4wcHQiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9k aXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCIgc3R5bGU9Im1hcmdpbi1sZWZ0OjM2LjBw dCI+VGhhbmtzLDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05v cm1hbCIgc3R5bGU9Im1hcmdpbi1sZWZ0OjM2LjBwdCI+QWxpc3NhPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8 ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCIgc3R5bGU9Im1hcmdpbi1sZWZ0OjM2LjBwdCI+PGJy Pg0KPGJyPg0KPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8YmxvY2txdW90ZSBzdHlsZT0ibWFyZ2luLXRvcDo1 LjBwdDttYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tOjUuMHB0Ij4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIiBz dHlsZT0ibWFyZ2luLWxlZnQ6MzYuMHB0Ij5CZWdpbiBmb3J3YXJkZWQgbWVzc2FnZTo8bzpwPjwv bzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCIgc3R5bGU9Im1hcmdpbi1sZWZ0 OjM2LjBwdCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3A+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1h bCIgc3R5bGU9Im1hcmdpbi1sZWZ0OjM2LjBwdCI+PGI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtZmFtaWx5 OiZxdW90O0hlbHZldGljYSBOZXVlJnF1b3Q7Ij5Gcm9tOg0KPC9zcGFuPjwvYj48c3BhbiBzdHls ZT0iZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7SGVsdmV0aWNhIE5ldWUmcXVvdDsiPklFVEYgRXhlY3V0aXZl IERpcmVjdG9yICZsdDs8YSBocmVmPSJtYWlsdG86ZXhlYy1kaXJlY3RvckBpZXRmLm9yZyI+ZXhl Yy1kaXJlY3RvckBpZXRmLm9yZzwvYT4mZ3Q7PC9zcGFuPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+ DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCIgc3R5bGU9Im1hcmdpbi1sZWZ0OjM2LjBwdCI+ PGI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0hlbHZldGljYSBOZXVlJnF1b3Q7Ij5T dWJqZWN0OiBSZW1pbmRlcjogU3VydmV5IG9uIHBsYW5uaW5nIGZvciBwb3NzaWJsZSBvbmxpbmUg SUVURiBtZWV0aW5nczwvc3Bhbj48L2I+PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8 cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIiBzdHlsZT0ibWFyZ2luLWxlZnQ6MzYuMHB0Ij48Yj48c3BhbiBz dHlsZT0iZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7SGVsdmV0aWNhIE5ldWUmcXVvdDsiPkRhdGU6DQo8L3Nw YW4+PC9iPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtIZWx2ZXRpY2EgTmV1ZSZxdW90 OyI+TWF5IDQsIDIwMjAgYXQgMzowMzozNSBBTSBFRFQ8L3NwYW4+PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8 L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIiBzdHlsZT0ibWFyZ2luLWxlZnQ6MzYu MHB0Ij48Yj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7SGVsdmV0aWNhIE5ldWUmcXVv dDsiPlRvOg0KPC9zcGFuPjwvYj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7SGVsdmV0 aWNhIE5ldWUmcXVvdDsiPiZxdW90O0lFVEYgQW5ub3VuY2VtZW50IExpc3QmcXVvdDsgJmx0Ozxh IGhyZWY9Im1haWx0bzppZXRmLWFubm91bmNlQGlldGYub3JnIj5pZXRmLWFubm91bmNlQGlldGYu b3JnPC9hPiZndDs8L3NwYW4+PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFz cz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIiBzdHlsZT0ibWFyZ2luLWxlZnQ6MzYuMHB0Ij48Yj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0i Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7SGVsdmV0aWNhIE5ldWUmcXVvdDsiPlJlcGx5LVRvOg0KPC9zcGFu PjwvYj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7SGVsdmV0aWNhIE5ldWUmcXVvdDsi PjxhIGhyZWY9Im1haWx0bzppZXRmMTA4cGxhbm5pbmdAaWV0Zi5vcmciPmlldGYxMDhwbGFubmlu Z0BpZXRmLm9yZzwvYT48L3NwYW4+PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJN c29Ob3JtYWwiIHN0eWxlPSJtYXJnaW4tbGVmdDozNi4wcHQiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9w Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIiBzdHlsZT0ibWFyZ2luLWxlZnQ6 MzYuMHB0Ij5UaGlzIGlzIGEgcmVtaW5kZXIgdGhhdCB3ZSBuZWVkIHRoZSBJRVRGIGNvbW11bml0 eSB0byBoZWxwIHVzIHBsYW4gZm9yIHRoZSBwb3NzaWJpbGl0eSB0aGF0IG9uZSBvciBtb3JlIHVw Y29taW5nIElFVEYgbWVldGluZ3MgaW4gMjAyMCBhbmQgcG9zc2libHkgMjAyMSBtYXkgbm90IGJl IGFibGUgdG8gZ28gYWhlYWQgaW4gcGVyc29uLiAmbmJzcDtZb3UgY2FuIGhlbHAgdXMNCiB3aXRo IHRoaXMgYnkgZmlsbGluZyBvdXQgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBzdXJ2ZXk6IDxicj4NCjxicj4NCjxh IGhyZWY9Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnN1cnZleW1vbmtleS5jb20vci81MzI4RkZKIj5odHRwczovL3d3 dy5zdXJ2ZXltb25rZXkuY29tL3IvNTMyOEZGSjwvYT48YnI+DQo8YnI+DQpTbyBmYXIgd2UgaGF2 ZSAxMTQgcmVzcG9uc2VzIGFuZCB3ZSB3b3VsZCBpZGVhbGx5IGxpa2UgNTAwIG9yIG1vcmUuPGJy Pg0KPGJyPg0KVGhlIHN1cnZleSBjb250YWlucyB0aGUgZm9sbG93aW5nIHBhZ2VzIGFuZCB3aWxs IHRha2UgMTUtMjAgbWludXRlcyB0byBjb21wbGV0ZTo8YnI+DQo8YnI+DQoxLiBXZWxjb21lPGJy Pg0KMi4gT25saW5lIElFVEYgMTA3IGFuZCB0aGUgc3Vic2VxdWVudCB2aXJ0dWFsIGludGVyaW1z PGJyPg0KMy4gUmVwbGFjaW5nIGEgY2FuY2VsbGVkIGluLXBlcnNvbiBtZWV0aW5nPGJyPg0KNC4g T25saW5lIG1lZXRpbmcgZm9ybWF0IGFuZCB0aW1lem9uZTxicj4NCjUuIFJlcGxpY2F0aW5nIGh1 bW1pbmc8YnI+DQo2LiBSZXBsaWNhdGluZyB0aGUgaGFsbHdheSBlbnZpcm9ubWVudDxicj4NCjcu IEZlZXM8YnI+DQo4LiBUaGFua3MgYW5kIGFueXRoaW5nIGVsc2U8YnI+DQo8YnI+DQpXZSBydW4g dGhlIHN1cnZleSBpbiBhbm9ueW1vdXMgbW9kZSB3aGljaCBtZWFucyB0aGF0IHdlIG9ubHkgc2Vl IGRhdGEgdGhhdCB5b3UgZXhwbGljaXRseSBwcm92aWRlLjxicj4NCjxicj4NClRoYW5rIHlvdSBp biBhZHZhbmNlIGZvciB5b3VyIGhlbHAuPGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KLS0gPGJyPg0KQWxpc3NhIENvb3Bl ciwgSUVURiBDaGFpcjxicj4NCkpheSBEYWxleSwgSUVURiBFeGVjdXRpdmUgRGlyZWN0b3I8YnI+ DQpDb2xpbiBQZXJraW5zLCBJUlRGIENoYWlyPGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX188YnI+DQpJRVRGLUFubm91bmNlIG1haWxpbmcg bGlzdDxicj4NCklFVEYtQW5ub3VuY2VAaWV0Zi5vcmc8YnI+DQpodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9y Zy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2lldGYtYW5ub3VuY2U8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0K PC9kaXY+DQo8L2Jsb2NrcXVvdGU+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiIHN0eWxl PSJtYXJnaW4tbGVmdDozNi4wcHQiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rp dj4NCjwvYm9keT4NCjwvaHRtbD4NCg== --_000_1D2A2949E5ED4491AF5FA28B8F9987FEericssoncom_-- From nobody Tue May 12 18:27:53 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCCCA3A0AD4 for ; Tue, 12 May 2020 18:27:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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] 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 oypcAgIJrgSr for ; Tue, 12 May 2020 18:27:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pg1-x52b.google.com (mail-pg1-x52b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52b]) (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 CC53B3A0AD1 for ; Tue, 12 May 2020 18:27:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x52b.google.com with SMTP id f23so6357758pgj.4 for ; Tue, 12 May 2020 18:27:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=to:from:subject:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Q8l3RRG/mbrfzAgrh23qSlpBshj15VcgQQBgCqY8A30=; b=k+9BqCbdb3bCUlG2VlXtfz9WSG2gRzoe580bjArtu96p1ClYnMYMJ5vX0lzc0fnHty DDhtpP7sMQWO2NoPia2iAyzfpji0gXNliKLEkBaOWHBEEPKLRMbXSKup1i55K9dRXMVq Jeo+DF68Ybc3XEZFJYyVkzsGz3UIZyJP9xcc4IvUAyPL9qyzRi9P9rrvv2EhCCDNPjSn c4vSC4fjWjH95D1Rxy/Un5kVjRXP7IRLIuatDUGqN9zwVdEbh+fIbA//Tl2Y7NG8Lbu1 SkpfkeTR7Aw8gQ8G4lzAseO/PYYQ/ckofRjEVz71lFr6/3ZLnf+YKrWT1Omm0uNBQwvX OXug== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:to:from:subject:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Q8l3RRG/mbrfzAgrh23qSlpBshj15VcgQQBgCqY8A30=; b=bMemZp/gSFlDGd6s86wqdHF/kRK7GofTZKd2so7JP6/Wik9+DsjBpHUacbKbLwaJeE 4eHdnRSiQKeS9Loz2ksLm+5nB90y0ubBelPcTEroVC2VkmASoSgITFj+HHD0vNii/0aO OwVdbLLMBW6igdAOCb53wXR2kIJb+5k2Tqa+jUPQC5hXoabteqHEYUulu6l6zrTatVN1 xgiLzXvwd/9/p3RvYmr/tCzNYT3yj8cuhttYshNzqDm9o5cbjyPKSvNc3dDK8T2odZHa rrr2KlTv/yjxhBdgzcIOUSUbTIsg5Nb+14OXomRd91k+Cuh9+/CeDVsi/7YyPj2Rft4v hw6Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuY7bHaEQyfU64xHwslSPj4c9adPqdupOtltLqBUqgKY2AIa55CT RnQIycT+9sYJF4nWG5A4JVNlitDt X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypKDuKHwsTQdN5sK4Nxv49mKPmT7oGxKiyk43uCyL7hwWH1azKt1faRuPdcfiQmZ8TkRKkFsVw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:a:: with SMTP id h10mr23437829pfk.160.1589333269801; Tue, 12 May 2020 18:27:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([165.84.12.178]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h11sm12840037pfo.120.2020.05.12.18.27.48 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 12 May 2020 18:27:49 -0700 (PDT) To: gendispatch@ietf.org From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland Message-ID: <81196658-51ae-cd36-9b3e-6237f8884d47@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 13:27:46 +1200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: [Gendispatch] Geography and the IETF mission X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: General Area Dispatch List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 01:27:52 -0000 =46rom the discussion of the LLC draft strategy: >>>>> Should the Values also mention the international scope: no loyalty = to any particular economic, geographical or cultural factors? >>>> >>>> I think that=E2=80=99s an IETF consensus decision, which if articula= ted the LLC would of course uphold as set out in the 'Responsive' value.>= > Well, I will take that to gendispatch. Should the IETF Mission Statement be updated to include something like: The IETF owes no loyalty to any particular economic, geographical or cult= ural groupings. Regards Brian From nobody Tue May 12 20:18:15 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54DE53A07BA for ; Tue, 12 May 2020 20:18:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.45 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1536-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=iecc.com header.b=ZqSEovQ6; dkim=fail (1536-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=taugh.com header.b=GiqnxBgw 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 64ErcSWaJd08 for ; Tue, 12 May 2020 20:18:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B34863A07B6 for ; Tue, 12 May 2020 20:18:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 10561 invoked by uid 100); 13 May 2020 03:18:09 -0000 Date: 13 May 2020 03:18:09 -0000 Message-ID: From: "John Levine" To: gendispatch@ietf.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cleverness; s=2939.5ebb66f1.k2005; i=news@user.iecc.com; bh=MjlX8wYS6nqVjTEsp4gR+27XbLz39xSnOqfwYAx7kxQ=; b=ZqSEovQ6t8KDIZxSo4GaszqyRTQThTRrDE71dWAB8+LL3TXzpLLpRN/2BcGYem22Y4zAHXLv/3biYXVw1xEqowzgHLUKrbIepFnlgSezN+DXupYp2Us+J3oruy/b7t9CFK6A3dwMC2Dh3gm0Hhr92x/Et12xXDyXLFJ/kNHqAajinHlsOucfZ+df7+ZlU9CO812VB0RUTgwbf3O+jTEXJh9J6u+V8Fl9Pj2uiwHask3ZrO0Ub0wn15VJ6sIQM7aS DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:cleverness; s=2939.5ebb66f1.k2005; olt=news@user.iecc.com; bh=MjlX8wYS6nqVjTEsp4gR+27XbLz39xSnOqfwYAx7kxQ=; b=GiqnxBgw6MIvLdYuajJw9pwrYN3EpqNaqnrKua5zw6/QZn4KNsclxTEB5JKE2UDcPVzaXjt44CXKFNuRYsRu3mcGZFiTukTIuwG3LRhNrYSqmbWw7mMyivxqaWazr4STcDTk42V2SP9KceSRjZVqkpgneRA456z7WBmc1OVHDJIfCcRFdyx++yDufdomRh6ZvEIMWww0wDc9+YAztoEmavcDemjJF1hI0KvjeySsp8aK77eL9t7Vci8T0UkTVYuk Organization: Taughannock Networks References: <81196658-51ae-cd36-9b3e-6237f8884d47@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <81196658-51ae-cd36-9b3e-6237f8884d47@gmail.com> Cleverness: some X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010) Originator: johnl@iecc.com (John Levine) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] Geography and the IETF mission X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: General Area Dispatch List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 03:18:13 -0000 In article <81196658-51ae-cd36-9b3e-6237f8884d47@gmail.com>, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >The IETF owes no loyalty to any particular economic, geographical or cultural groupings. We seem pretty committed to speaking English. -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly From nobody Tue May 12 20:55:33 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BCF03A09C0 for ; Tue, 12 May 2020 20:55:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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] 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 2Zqx7vOyJmEm for ; Tue, 12 May 2020 20:55:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pf1-x42d.google.com (mail-pf1-x42d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42d]) (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 EC7A13A0942 for ; Tue, 12 May 2020 20:55:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x42d.google.com with SMTP id x2so7411634pfx.7 for ; Tue, 12 May 2020 20:55:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JuYMU03bMbimB3A21aP/MA1Az1Oodb6xUB1GvOAUo/E=; b=rGlogp3Z5o8+fnHbcDeYeBUBWQS0PYE/aE8aogkn7OMSp8G8/tAB022gLTVQ44bAJ3 td9OYzyQvUq4mbWfkycb499kDQtLOsKrXsIgPnROfeNGjhktJBvNSTNQD568BhQJwpRq B6+XhEA64cN2tmkAaX59PixqN+6LTn3YfFingnWOcYMOdW6OUiMfZpOM79IEpd5NuEuB YI3XwhgTziYWsrCFzi3J1dYVS52U1jxcPZJq1NAmwwv9VyB410CZxGPtLgvxEldVJ1wd b2VXe6Ki7f2OeqRJvFEs6ECZyvF1du0FwmkGXNHHj9gUuBdCpI+ecSOIZnE0mVMqCXxk IG/w== 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-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=JuYMU03bMbimB3A21aP/MA1Az1Oodb6xUB1GvOAUo/E=; b=T1DVqeCfh4FzxpVaXee9+F9uAUqUXj9W5Wwx0LkjN6MCimMp0Gqd+o0U/YXnqmDDKM WF9knyJPqkEDkmUVoKV+Edfcbuab0HurDS+WhKMRVq6zFG/mr00BLggz3LDXsiz9y8u+ ggfC9DvjBZxbCRYkniryVDKEu6PPDGGzOrJHXBnHmZ7uDZXlQhZNefdS5VolRZhxbFH8 SI2OtucaiuWjp+jwgzWRE/lciQV8btOtXLnc5bIRX8UT8o7QtIZ7KrQwT/7HNXi9gEUB m5tQJ9b9iXrcEWnUzR2Ahj2NPHoWAON4okUGFk5va7gRQggkaZIqcqbXhheSABJHkVBk C6BQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuadkY9SlaslqxBvodP44aP8kOblj7wCZzNAYxh2YaEuI7SNjOm8 WxsFCfUPiCjB5bQKPXTRE+sT8iAK X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypKQHxCN58PUHHsGQ6gUR0yYtjR2QQJmPbL3ESWNSKBN04bHQ+7cQpKislvIddzWOmMsWHdklA== X-Received: by 2002:a63:6f4c:: with SMTP id k73mr22086677pgc.241.1589342130040; Tue, 12 May 2020 20:55:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([165.84.12.178]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w73sm510503pfd.113.2020.05.12.20.55.27 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 12 May 2020 20:55:29 -0700 (PDT) To: John Levine , gendispatch@ietf.org References: <81196658-51ae-cd36-9b3e-6237f8884d47@gmail.com> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: <488789a5-74c6-2e82-6acd-7ac3e3343b78@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 15:55:25 +1200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] Geography and the IETF mission X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: General Area Dispatch List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 03:55:32 -0000 On 13-May-20 15:18, John Levine wrote: > In article <81196658-51ae-cd36-9b3e-6237f8884d47@gmail.com>, > Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> >> The IETF owes no loyalty to any particular economic, geographical or cultural groupings. > > We seem pretty committed to speaking English. True. But that's the closest thing the world (at least, the high tech world) has to a lingua franca these days. Brian From nobody Wed May 13 07:14:15 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3FEC3A0BBB for ; Wed, 13 May 2020 07:14:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=nykWN3Zw; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=I9CP/LfM 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 mwMUjEndScsa for ; Wed, 13 May 2020 07:14:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E0AC3A0BC5 for ; Wed, 13 May 2020 07:14:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 67884 invoked from network); 13 May 2020 14:14:04 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=1092a.5ebc00ac.k2005; i=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=nuaHcSOvX0qhM/EHSv5QoP8POUPHT09g5Q8YDd438uY=; b=nykWN3Zw2s9T4KEPsgZ9ndA2FiSOBjADw5e8yJKCUgK9bfJCd7GwXcwRMF70XxE2/bdfh0Bl6MEtUKK54gF5iBXs/gYDwQuG4doitXQzu+BdpsXUc+uSb2Wdotc3s7oFD0kg9X7RS+pZtKpwYCDIERIjFW6OvgLnBl2E3dryIoodEyYlz03ylk7LfNox0oo68n0jcv6VzpHrz7Od347xCmQMGlaSQw16l1GO0Q5SePqfd2D20CEkuisdJA21qPs1 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=1092a.5ebc00ac.k2005; olt=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=nuaHcSOvX0qhM/EHSv5QoP8POUPHT09g5Q8YDd438uY=; b=I9CP/LfMkRvJUl7NcqfJeH4wdB6WiNfKtPTNzYSficFLOKgjG4/9JqIP2w/qCSz0SLrSU1f3WwbhB3yq0JahcoSYmoYZDNsOIXWXQxHeya9tQ8P0ftR7ayiY0YR8GPnd3N1Ue16uer5yt2XP4ZyRMEY5FOK/bP0n0eELxCy96tjT1MofL432NZN8AUFaL8UkF4QbfZFrgHFL2QwoM8d9SNArMegDx6pOoseH/M9OWWPLcogClHpU1iiKOCTr2Cqc Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, johnl@iecc.com) via TCP6; 13 May 2020 14:14:04 -0000 Date: 13 May 2020 10:14:03 -0400 Message-ID: From: "John R Levine" To: "Brian E Carpenter" , gendispatch@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <488789a5-74c6-2e82-6acd-7ac3e3343b78@gmail.com> References: <81196658-51ae-cd36-9b3e-6237f8884d47@gmail.com> <488789a5-74c6-2e82-6acd-7ac3e3343b78@gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.22 (OSX 407 2020-02-09) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] Geography and the IETF mission X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: General Area Dispatch List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 14:14:14 -0000 On Wed, 13 May 2020, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> The IETF owes no loyalty to any particular economic, geographical or cultural groupings. >> >> We seem pretty committed to speaking English. > > True. But that's the closest thing the world (at least, the high tech world) has to a lingua franca these days. There are orgnizations we all know that work in multiple languages with simultaneous translation in sessions and translated versions of their documents. I agree that it makes sense for the IETF to work in English, but I've heard more than one complaint that we're excluding people who don't speak English. Also, given that the IETF remains dominated by old white anglophone guys like you and me, I wouldn't make such a statement without a lot more thought about what it implies. Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly From nobody Wed May 13 22:04:48 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CEDE3A0B40 for ; Wed, 13 May 2020 22:04:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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] 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 jPf6tIKuipA1 for ; Wed, 13 May 2020 22:04:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pg1-x535.google.com (mail-pg1-x535.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::535]) (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 E2CAC3A0B3F for ; Wed, 13 May 2020 22:04:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x535.google.com with SMTP id u35so762366pgk.6 for ; Wed, 13 May 2020 22:04:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=DMiTbNY9wqdpNIF/gD96fnAQ3mGj/PxbxeTNO9z4Rqc=; b=ab6NPdQbhgfLT/XzhoCvXRAaSqtyG4t2xtZ98XJQndVic2O1gwF6nFZS//g7MwFUsN bmD5pL324csB704955LtV+ocCaPPyfJmarrhjjPKuNpWgibdQmrcaa/Ei0ewvteTr1nM giLfFHnGBbvPlyviotAJMNAsY32VUmwtHMLAFAQvrTo/x+ZcmumqLRy1KVVXYQUH8sTB VIZaPmKzfQoFMuJOnUV9F2HtObEJ8R9DMyCzi4IZNaG8FVW45L/zwa9bfqjfjoenrMtu FaIQfNhqYGpYa3sIN/Sz+L1sUndtVXgWZsx1sRqAl/VRQVINtpNtcw3W4SD9B9jAldnc 5Agw== 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-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=DMiTbNY9wqdpNIF/gD96fnAQ3mGj/PxbxeTNO9z4Rqc=; b=sVQl19cOol6KFxVg00ukg2R0OsA1quoCPW7ToIDx63eB9A/qQAvmthl+JWSicenTsu Zwg1xDOtVJ5+jN8w94Q6mbRRwF77RaSyoCVUaQMLUxhE46Vf90I+0sP2x5mB/iEZXdr5 24/8PyDr5UCsf7o4HggwrzTumTuEVf0NkmcUXAZKNEOAX3dJ6w7ilb0U8KVD5F9Lw8Fs n8C/DPbCT6Wf3PhA26sKh+Jsjym0IzIOMdJ2ExUnwMhlt1qPV/HVqII9DfU7R+/d0i+/ 9eUeK6CSdPCwjJ2lFnca0C/wcGfGn5d4Ob9BYdVu095M3mmXvXYElhGO0RYtAoJV6dSw oNeg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531sD90SxUQkyx3uttkEYxdJ40DW/91jinPcucCsea4mphHAXtyD kxn3oeYzb1Bl6nrUipYK/99uBTB1 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx/cjHyvNO2or7cAGkcZ4qXY0VmBd72CZo551gS1vR4rLK2StfteudnBAu6W6MY6mhEcQbPjw== X-Received: by 2002:a63:f555:: with SMTP id e21mr2506305pgk.254.1589432684014; Wed, 13 May 2020 22:04:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([165.84.12.178]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g61sm17565097pjg.55.2020.05.13.22.04.41 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 13 May 2020 22:04:43 -0700 (PDT) To: John R Levine , gendispatch@ietf.org References: <81196658-51ae-cd36-9b3e-6237f8884d47@gmail.com> <488789a5-74c6-2e82-6acd-7ac3e3343b78@gmail.com> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 17:04:39 +1200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] Geography and the IETF mission X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: General Area Dispatch List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 05:04:48 -0000 On 14-May-20 02:14, John R Levine wrote: > On Wed, 13 May 2020, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>>> The IETF owes no loyalty to any particular economic, geographical or cultural groupings. >>> >>> We seem pretty committed to speaking English. >> >> True. But that's the closest thing the world (at least, the high tech world) has to a lingua franca these days. > > There are orgnizations we all know that work in multiple languages with > simultaneous translation in sessions and translated versions of their > documents. I agree that it makes sense for the IETF to work in English, > but I've heard more than one complaint that we're excluding people who > don't speak English. > > Also, given that the IETF remains dominated by old white anglophone guys > like you and me, I wouldn't make such a statement without a lot more > thought about what it implies. We did, apparently, think about it when publishing the Mission Statement: "4.4. The Reach of the Internet The Internet is a global phenomenon. The people interested in its evolution are from every culture under the sun and from all walks of life. The IETF puts its emphasis on technical competence, rough consensus and individual participation, and needs to be open to competent input from any source. The IETF uses the English language for its work is because of its utility for working in a global context." All I'm suggesting to add is the "owes no loyalty" frill on that. Brian From nobody Fri May 15 20:54:09 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEC033A097E for ; Fri, 15 May 2020 20:54:06 -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 xjuEBYqILlUP for ; Fri, 15 May 2020 20:54:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFDD13A0977 for ; Fri, 15 May 2020 20:54:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.10] (unknown [181.45.84.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 225BF283735; Sat, 16 May 2020 03:54:00 +0000 (UTC) To: Brian E Carpenter Cc: gendispatch@ietf.org From: Fernando Gont Message-ID: Date: Sat, 16 May 2020 00:53:48 -0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] Possible topic: WG adoption of drafts X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: General Area Dispatch List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 May 2020 03:54:07 -0000 Hi, Brian, [Apologies for breaking the "threading" feature, since I just subscribed to the list, and hence I'm not using the "Reply" feature of my email client, but rather composing a new message] In-line.... > > While looking into something recently, I noticed that we don't seem > to have any documented process for document adoption by WGs, or even > general guidelines, although the tracker and the I-D submission > mechanism support this change of state. It isn't described in RFC2418 > or in the Tao, or anywhere else that I could find. Yet it's become > quite important in the life of most WGs, and the decision to adopt a > draft is of considerable importance. > > Is this a topic that deserves some work? (No, I haven't written a > draft, and don't want to unless there is interest.) Yes. It is indeed very important, and it does deserve work. I would encourage work on the topic. Questions such a document should address include: 1) What are the conditions, if any, necessary for a wg call for adoption to be performed on a document? 2) If/when those conditions are met, what are reasonable timeframe expectations for the consensus call to be performed? 3) The previous two bullets would also imply that if the conditions in #1 have been met, and the time in #2 has elapsed, failure to perform a consensus call should be considered an action (by omission) subject to the procedures in RFC2026. You can count on me for reviewing a draft (if eventually there's any), or proposing text if that'd be of value. Thanks! Cheers, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 From nobody Mon May 18 05:19:37 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 772B23A0B45 for ; Mon, 18 May 2020 05:19:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.197 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 hVZ72kAUoUwX for ; Mon, 18 May 2020 05:19:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lj1-x22b.google.com (mail-lj1-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22b]) (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 4DD863A0B42 for ; Mon, 18 May 2020 05:19:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-x22b.google.com with SMTP id m18so1202257ljo.5 for ; Mon, 18 May 2020 05:19:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Obc6EPBwzxG9HLw4Rie+LaKYYO6YUL7pTBhIBVzmUf4=; b=cT8qSqWaKQrAgG7pYGglSRoXfldUQS16/FRjy8+PctpcyztWgRgtZi6IAkoTd38FOI UGTAJf2FpOucQub5UpuuEcjSQ6wdzi1g1BugBZPa42zB1X7lUu1+0vjzTZZ2UEBWykqK 0SpgteTsfiuxZ8dTkEv2KVsQzE16A8D72hfBLYMGTci+gXMzYMQftCZJv8BYokPwn94b j5e+uJhg0PKE3eSe7FLwV198zZtvfvaqe5YNfyiFXQrO/vGaGomJfkLNBScHUDGlzG55 glD13FSYv1xDGZDqDmgZXSBdwXIMMVModXaCAcUboVyGcha9VUzJoaXjRMAVKvTKnLgd GM8A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Obc6EPBwzxG9HLw4Rie+LaKYYO6YUL7pTBhIBVzmUf4=; b=BkhWAfa74kwNge3kdj9YBrGg13qEWesXuRJzxFTO1NHg1paZoaaIe22g/fcKEYqxGm lTgY8HVy79JjmzZJblHNxcPCDuXKaDmSovSeQlb+FIXHUtMlnTicmpyX9gGSKSY0MEYx XkKN1K+XkkT1G7kYuVqyKIchaKpaDjC2xtbhKO3A1bHhSUddyOuZosOkJwG/HyxxdVEA 94CEmQkX5A9D+6sVzM22tLsprlgDcwc3Q13D9PtPBFpDwRP77WVmCjLiorLfaOba+ki3 L+SbkMUODOO3GdedT474jxXTnKBdQb3lZp7EPvYupfL2//eukhxI5T51ao8nhqpnuqCd Ow5w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531A49hXxea35jYxP67s/kiXuvFxzw6SdoohWokVYGZlGcQN6SgN k1gNHCnoDPB7B+oLsT1NF9HwMidX+0Z3chggODs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw/s4MCiHU417AKGWW7yPWnUm/2X+0teeptm8PYx1GOOrp+LcKzq2vXoDT2d12It35+6rqEDZIesgmgFFGrYI0= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b3cd:: with SMTP id j13mr3590928lje.237.1589804372457; Mon, 18 May 2020 05:19:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 07:19:06 -0500 Message-ID: To: Fernando Gont Cc: Brian E Carpenter , gendispatch@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e1fc9f05a5eb2c60" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] Possible topic: WG adoption of drafts X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: General Area Dispatch List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 12:19:37 -0000 --000000000000e1fc9f05a5eb2c60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" These are helpful observations from Brian and Fernando. I have thoughts. Inline. On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 10:54 PM Fernando Gont wrote: > Hi, Brian, > > [Apologies for breaking the "threading" feature, since I just subscribed > to the list, and hence I'm not using the "Reply" feature of my email > client, but rather composing a new message] > > In-line.... > > > > While looking into something recently, I noticed that we don't seem > > to have any documented process for document adoption by WGs, or even > > general guidelines, although the tracker and the I-D submission > > mechanism support this change of state. It isn't described in RFC2418 > > or in the Tao, or anywhere else that I could find. Yet it's become > > quite important in the life of most WGs, and the decision to adopt a > > draft is of considerable importance. > > > > Is this a topic that deserves some work? (No, I haven't written a > > draft, and don't want to unless there is interest.) > > Yes. It is indeed very important, and it does deserve work. I would > encourage work on the topic. > > Questions such a document should address include: > > 1) What are the conditions, if any, necessary for a wg call for adoption > to be performed on a document? > > 2) If/when those conditions are met, what are reasonable timeframe > expectations for the consensus call to be performed? > > 3) The previous two bullets would also imply that if the conditions in > #1 have been met, and the time in #2 has elapsed, failure to perform a > consensus call should be considered an action (by omission) subject to > the procedures in RFC2026. > I agree that working group draft adoption is a widespread practice. As an individual participant, I certainly treat this as an important step for drafts I am working on. I agree that at least documenting the practice would be helpful to new participants. I don't know if it's universal across all working groups. That's probably a question that should also be asked on the wgchairs mailing list. I don't know if this step is necessary for all drafts in working groups that use this practice - that's trying to guess the edge cases. As I almost always do, I'd phrase guidance on this topic as recommendations - we really do trust working group chairs to make bigger decisions about working group consensus for the benefit of their working groups. So a RECOMMENDED BCP, or even an Informational draft, seems more useful than a REQUIRED BCP, with all the edge cases we usually trip over when we write such text. And my understanding is that we can appeal almost anything using the procedures in RFC 2026, if that's what you're referring to. This probably isn't a special case that needs to be mentioned in a document ("in addition to everything else that you can appeal, we remind you that you can appeal this, too"). Do The Right Thing, of course. Best, Spencer > You can count on me for reviewing a draft (if eventually there's any), > or proposing text if that'd be of value. > > Thanks! > > Cheers, > -- > Fernando Gont > SI6 Networks > e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com > PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 > > > > > -- > Gendispatch mailing list > Gendispatch@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch > --000000000000e1fc9f05a5eb2c60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
These are helpful observations from Brian and Fernand= o.=C2=A0

I have thoughts. Inline.=C2=A0

<= div class=3D"gmail_quote">
On Fri, May= 15, 2020 at 10:54 PM Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
Hi, Brian,

[Apologies for breaking the "threading" feature, since I just sub= scribed
to the list, and hence I'm not using the "Reply" feature of m= y email
client, but rather composing a new message]

In-line....
>
> While looking into something recently, I noticed that we don't see= m
> to have any documented process for document adoption by WGs, or even > general guidelines, although the tracker and the I-D submission
> mechanism support this change of state. It isn't described in RFC2= 418
> or in the Tao, or anywhere else that I could find. Yet it's become=
> quite important in the life of most WGs, and the decision to adopt a > draft is of considerable importance.
>
> Is this a topic that deserves some work? (No, I haven't written a<= br> > draft, and don't want to unless there is interest.)

Yes. It is indeed very important, and it does deserve work. I would
encourage work on the topic.

Questions such a document should address include:

1) What are the conditions, if any, necessary for a wg call for adoption to be performed on a document?

2) If/when those conditions are met, what are reasonable timeframe
expectations for the consensus call to be performed?

3) The previous two bullets would also imply that if the conditions in
#1 have been met, and the time in #2 has elapsed, failure to perform a
consensus call should be considered an action (by omission) subject to
the procedures in RFC2026.

I agree that= working group draft adoption is a widespread practice. As an individual pa= rticipant, I certainly treat this as an important step for drafts I am work= ing on.=C2=A0

I agree that at least documenting th= e practice would be helpful to new participants.=C2=A0

=
I don't know if it's universal across all working groups. That= 's probably a question that should also be asked on the wgchairs mailin= g list.

I don't know if this step is necessary= for all drafts in working groups that use this practice - that's tryin= g to guess the edge cases.=C2=A0

As I almost alway= s do, I'd phrase guidance on this topic as recommendations - we really = do trust working group chairs to make bigger decisions about working group= =C2=A0consensus for the benefit of their working groups. So a RECOMMENDED B= CP, or even an Informational draft, seems more useful than a REQUIRED BCP, = with all the edge cases we usually trip over when we write such text.=C2=A0=

And my understanding is that we can appeal almost= anything using the procedures in RFC 2026, if that's what you're r= eferring to. This probably isn't a special case that needs to be mentio= ned in a document ("in addition to everything else that you can appeal= , we remind you that you can appeal this, too").=C2=A0

<= /div>
Do The Right Thing, of course.=C2=A0

Bes= t,

Spencer
=C2=A0
You can count on me for reviewing a draft = (if eventually there's any),
or proposing text if that'd be of value.

Thanks!

Cheers,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si= 6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492




--
Gendispatch mailing list
Gendispatch@ietf.= org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch
--000000000000e1fc9f05a5eb2c60-- From nobody Wed May 20 08:34:41 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B0993A09BC for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 08:34:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.002 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 0HzNWjz4umy0 for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 08:34:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from episteme.net (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8C073A0A7D for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 08:34:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C9F2AD7FCA8 for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 10:34:36 -0500 (CDT) Received: from episteme.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZH-CWIajZTI7 for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 10:34:33 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [172.16.1.18] (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) by episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 02846AD7FC94 for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 10:34:32 -0500 (CDT) From: "Pete Resnick" To: gendispatch@ietf.org Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 10:34:08 -0500 X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.1r5683) Message-ID: <48F4B18B-C401-4177-AB8A-064A4BE18740@episteme.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; markup=markdown Archived-At: Subject: [Gendispatch] Early reminder - WG Scheduling / Drafts needed X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: General Area Dispatch List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 15:34:40 -0000 Greetings all, Just a reminder that WG scheduling for IETF 108 has started and ends in about 3 weeks. We've had a few topics brought up on the list; you may have others. If you wish them to be discussed at IETF 108 (preferably with some discussion starting on the list beforehand), please scribble up an I-D and post it. Thanks, Francesca and Pete From nobody Wed May 20 21:07:45 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D08583A0AA5 for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 21:07:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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] 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 Ips1WCl8V2_i for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 21:07:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pl1-x62e.google.com (mail-pl1-x62e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62e]) (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 78DC33A0AA4 for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 21:07:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x62e.google.com with SMTP id x10so2274327plr.4 for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 21:07:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QkALmdSfQ2E91JkevAzayjb/zHv8oPyiG3izRDaXZxY=; b=E9rJJfLAIlX1Qi7v0BrGdyWlENo0pCErwPxwGgniuJSGhax1UyKbnoTkdJ+rCAbYso cFbXKVasNQghk/H/EoNWdcJLKCYFWUMvjeoIWsTf/aHZ4Vwl3zkAE6D0iDUc9YHHgBgC ToE62CO+R9zvXRPLOdMZN7Kaj9UJsqo8tdXj/NneMlvbRoDVOLlDbLTqRlUFmtcAn1wk XseAg1Rsxc/Envf9+f+CIUfokYX50y8Tnd1ui3+SHExkrha/eJfB0kBBwFBGAHua/OMm etpb/G3qh4G9Llsc0wUZLovbumJYZitlBZym6o5sYMPbrto5upAs7jaAGOHx9zUH6skR nTFg== 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:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QkALmdSfQ2E91JkevAzayjb/zHv8oPyiG3izRDaXZxY=; b=qgNLPkcYETfi6Wl6MU8AIXc6Wh7ARWvMCYJ5aHlJ6zM2f94W4pLLpDzbHb+CzDcs0X yeP+JrXn1hgSGNh2fcq/vlrdtTb3wRQpyLXTBkS47rwPNT75WvAF3tzizGpi7qKY9Gjb 8p9KvZnv3tBdxKpsACp83RQVZGWRrDjdzI9ZXt5IZLbZaUq3PT6oLazb9CbpnzED31Yr CZvXUZnX8JLPqLFnxs1j06fS8IHYRiLULbWz35o4GKxqrusrpMdmqdkXpGECRwsaceYP b0PInwJUGPYqp51xNdehpBQ90gtMAYaCZevTnyM7t+4pYBRnK59rdCjccJSgz6IRudWd 2PRA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530cOAX16HPiek33kt+/qrHD42afvjU406eBFD6O8g5Iare34EtF j97kG43dqW3GGAtTx/83yrpXc5VI X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyhB9bwXZUI15WM23oOkkA8dJtBpWhIiyG5u8rohDGeS3wK14f+gKX/CrKULLnxTACUDpHcmg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:8c0c:: with SMTP id a12mr9010129pjo.149.1590034061593; Wed, 20 May 2020 21:07:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([165.84.12.178]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x5sm3263241pfq.196.2020.05.20.21.07.39 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 20 May 2020 21:07:40 -0700 (PDT) To: John R Levine , gendispatch@ietf.org References: <81196658-51ae-cd36-9b3e-6237f8884d47@gmail.com> <488789a5-74c6-2e82-6acd-7ac3e3343b78@gmail.com> From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland Message-ID: <7a1e9c25-9f30-d77a-d942-f1007d970f16@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 16:07:35 +1200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] Geography and the IETF mission X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: General Area Dispatch List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 04:07:44 -0000 Hi all, I'm going to withdraw this suggested topic. On reflection, I think the text in the Mission Statement already says enough to make our international scope and openness to all people plain. Regards Brian Carpenter On 14-May-20 17:04, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 14-May-20 02:14, John R Levine wrote: >> On Wed, 13 May 2020, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>>>> The IETF owes no loyalty to any particular economic, geographical or cultural groupings. >>>> >>>> We seem pretty committed to speaking English. >>> >>> True. But that's the closest thing the world (at least, the high tech world) has to a lingua franca these days. >> >> There are orgnizations we all know that work in multiple languages with >> simultaneous translation in sessions and translated versions of their >> documents. I agree that it makes sense for the IETF to work in English, >> but I've heard more than one complaint that we're excluding people who >> don't speak English. >> >> Also, given that the IETF remains dominated by old white anglophone guys >> like you and me, I wouldn't make such a statement without a lot more >> thought about what it implies. > > We did, apparently, think about it when publishing the Mission Statement: > > "4.4. The Reach of the Internet > > The Internet is a global phenomenon. The people interested in its > evolution are from every culture under the sun and from all walks of > life. The IETF puts its emphasis on technical competence, rough > consensus and individual participation, and needs to be open to > competent input from any source. The IETF uses the English language > for its work is because of its utility for working in a global > context." > > All I'm suggesting to add is the "owes no loyalty" frill on that. > > Brian > From nobody Thu May 21 20:26:41 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC6853A0E31 for ; Thu, 21 May 2020 20:26:38 -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 XIXj0jUfKcRa for ; Thu, 21 May 2020 20:26:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pg1-x534.google.com (mail-pg1-x534.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::534]) (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 0D8C33A0E2A for ; Thu, 21 May 2020 20:26:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x534.google.com with SMTP id f21so1333024pgg.12 for ; Thu, 21 May 2020 20:26:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/ZXGl6h1sJpVXBe2xVHwkieFmm4aG3F8Q6MTsqox3Ho=; b=eoQkYoz5HcuWnRKU2Iq7uOrUAOnlrf5kXkNvX6Y+y3RMYGpN19X1JtDgkgd9kAufcX rlNw1L8mxk4bSkeW0XyiLEdNPguSqdwO3Hz1f4hL0sqb5RYpyzf7pvd2mEwZzEI1czeR 4C2ilEn6N/WR8TdKXvFz6E47hzKLjy3l0hdqwk5Iog56vhzG3gtHgBTXMKrAfA3/0ONf ARLN02OO52FuNAO9+un3tjEemuSSl/WVS7BSsbjD0GpzWKX5SWVPngNhYyD+2+WKQTu8 kFpEQcIG47v4oF5SkMfJ7DRHGUh/zthBtuV3ZGy42qk3X0tYGGM1vzxzk5IJZylV7d81 PZjQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=/ZXGl6h1sJpVXBe2xVHwkieFmm4aG3F8Q6MTsqox3Ho=; b=ZD1d1j8iFxAH5RP5bg4jANymKO4MyWQi5OLzIL3yqIF/10Lw30jqnuHsaISf8RE8z5 y6EwMoNB6YF/weJ9II5TcRu2wezI5Zu9VLiEF1A/DOjNmjsorBnZZs9RNPH34PQRQySZ GqKHvbB7lFynw4H08c6RmFxpaI9P+fcRhmtC1Tddq7G1pJxWsD8DZ8adlrXwcIEQtZQl 62+OSwf+6v+70x2tYslJ1++HR3FwQli0qGQAxKeZKn7i9QVRkeR+vhCitqQivsRiTzKb X3cXZ2lWNyMVqv/BT+Zq07KJiugCVAWVqxDxathwavvpogU59YXG6oRmVrmWN45pSfOV IHYA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5304j6RDKnlofrW82a8N4ajco+KlHa53p2jegw0aabq1SOOvbcNS v2prJUl2aAtxuqEfhx+zjKU8RTHN X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyzzXNIO05J3OcQw+v05T7r7FY0/OhuyMrRsvKP6IRoGczBOVOun/PsVw0WnPtY1y0oJR1OAw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:14d5:: with SMTP id w21mr1815156pfu.53.1590117994930; Thu, 21 May 2020 20:26:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([165.84.12.178]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id bu7sm4372124pjb.41.2020.05.21.20.26.32 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 21 May 2020 20:26:34 -0700 (PDT) To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF , Fernando Gont Cc: gendispatch@ietf.org References: From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 15:26:29 +1200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] Possible topic: WG adoption of drafts X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: General Area Dispatch List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 03:26:39 -0000 One more thing before we write a draft. A thread elsewhere reminded me th= at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7221#section-2.2 covers some of this gr= ound. It's Informational so doesn't have normative effect. But is it alre= ady enough? Regards Brian On 19-May-20 00:19, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote: > These are helpful observations from Brian and Fernando.=C2=A0 >=20 > I have thoughts. Inline.=C2=A0 >=20 > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 10:54 PM Fernando Gont > wrote: >=20 > Hi, Brian, >=20 > [Apologies for breaking the "threading" feature, since I just subsc= ribed > to the list, and hence I'm not using the "Reply" feature of my emai= l > client, but rather composing a new message] >=20 > In-line.... > > > > While looking into something recently, I noticed that we don't se= em > > to have any documented process for document adoption by WGs, or e= ven > > general guidelines, although the tracker and the I-D submission > > mechanism support this change of state. It isn't described in RFC= 2418 > > or in the Tao, or anywhere else that I could find. Yet it's becom= e > > quite important in the life of most WGs, and the decision to adop= t a > > draft is of considerable importance. > > > > Is this a topic that deserves some work? (No, I haven't written a= > > draft, and don't want to unless there is interest.) >=20 > Yes. It is indeed very important, and it does deserve work. I would= > encourage work on the topic. >=20 > Questions such a document should address include: >=20 > 1) What are the conditions, if any, necessary for a wg call for ado= ption > to be performed on a document? >=20 > 2) If/when those conditions are met, what are reasonable timeframe > expectations for the consensus call to be performed? >=20 > 3) The previous two bullets would also imply that if the conditions= in > #1 have been met, and the time in #2 has elapsed, failure to perfor= m a > consensus call should be considered an action (by omission) subject= to > the procedures in RFC2026. >=20 >=20 > I agree that working group draft adoption is a widespread practice. As = an individual participant, I certainly treat this as an important step fo= r drafts I am working on.=C2=A0 >=20 > I agree that at least documenting the practice would be helpful to new = participants.=C2=A0 >=20 > I don't know if it's universal across all working groups. That's probab= ly a question that should also be asked on the wgchairs mailing list. >=20 > I don't know if this step is necessary for all drafts in working groups= that use this practice - that's trying to guess the edge cases.=C2=A0 >=20 > As I almost always do, I'd phrase guidance on this topic as recommendat= ions - we really do trust working group chairs to make bigger decisions a= bout working group=C2=A0consensus for the benefit of their working groups= =2E So a RECOMMENDED BCP, or even an Informational draft, seems more usef= ul than a REQUIRED BCP, with all the edge cases we usually trip over when= we write such text.=C2=A0 >=20 > And my understanding is that we can appeal almost anything using the pr= ocedures in RFC 2026, if that's what you're referring to. This probably i= sn't a special case that needs to be mentioned in a document ("in additio= n to everything else that you can appeal, we remind you that you can appe= al this, too").=C2=A0 >=20 > Do The Right Thing, of course.=C2=A0 >=20 > Best, >=20 > Spencer > =C2=A0 >=20 > You can count on me for reviewing a draft (if eventually there's an= y), > or proposing text if that'd be of value. >=20 > Thanks! >=20 > Cheers, > --=20 > Fernando Gont > SI6 Networks > e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com > PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Gendispatch mailing list > Gendispatch@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch >=20 From nobody Fri May 22 02:56:31 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 491C53A09DC for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 02:56:29 -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 haa-xMBD4UKl for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 02:56:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 799703A09F6 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 02:56:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:11f:f597:cad2:df35:f6c5] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:11f:f597:cad2:df35:f6c5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5869F28380C; Fri, 22 May 2020 09:56:21 +0000 (UTC) To: Brian E Carpenter , Spencer Dawkins at IETF Cc: gendispatch@ietf.org References: From: Fernando Gont Message-ID: Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 06:50:49 -0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] Possible topic: WG adoption of drafts X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: General Area Dispatch List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 09:56:30 -0000 On 22/5/20 00:26, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > One more thing before we write a draft. A thread elsewhere reminded me that https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7221#section-2.2 covers some of this ground. It's Informational so doesn't have normative effect. But is it already enough? The rest of the process is BCP. So I think the wg adoption part should, too. Thanks! Cheers, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 From nobody Fri May 22 02:56:40 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 795233A09F2 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 02:56:31 -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 dDixQg9Sh9Dx for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 02:56:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFC6E3A09F6 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 02:56:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:11f:f597:cad2:df35:f6c5] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:11f:f597:cad2:df35:f6c5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 580F228380C; Fri, 22 May 2020 09:56:27 +0000 (UTC) To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF Cc: gendispatch@ietf.org References: From: Fernando Gont Message-ID: <093c8506-4903-770d-45a8-1f2be879f510@si6networks.com> Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 06:56:05 -0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] Possible topic: WG adoption of drafts X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: General Area Dispatch List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 09:56:32 -0000 Hi, Spencer, On 18/5/20 09:19, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote: [....] > the procedures in RFC2026. > > > I agree that working group draft adoption is a widespread practice. As > an individual participant, I certainly treat this as an important step > for drafts I am working on. > > I agree that at least documenting the practice would be helpful to new > participants. > > I don't know if it's universal across all working groups. That's > probably a question that should also be asked on the wgchairs mailing list. > > I don't know if this step is necessary for all drafts in working groups > that use this practice - that's trying to guess the edge cases. Having a uniform practice among all wgs would be a good idea -- for many reasons. > As I almost always do, I'd phrase guidance on this topic as > recommendations - we really do trust working group chairs to make bigger > decisions about working group consensus for the benefit of their working > groups. So a RECOMMENDED BCP, or even an Informational draft, seems more > useful than a REQUIRED BCP, with all the edge cases we usually trip over > when we write such text. > > And my understanding is that we can appeal almost anything using the > procedures in RFC 2026, if that's what you're referring to. I guess you can. But how would you e.g. Appeal a non-decision? Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 From nobody Fri May 22 03:11:35 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FE8C3A0A53 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 03:11:30 -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 nOQoA3QJB4U6 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 03:11:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC2373A0A50 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 03:11:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:11f:f597:cad2:df35:f6c5] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:11f:f597:cad2:df35:f6c5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D357B2837A6; Fri, 22 May 2020 10:11:20 +0000 (UTC) To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF Cc: gendispatch@ietf.org References: From: Fernando Gont Message-ID: <142aaa6b-bf69-2995-ba2e-a9ae33027e07@si6networks.com> Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 06:58:52 -0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] Possible topic: WG adoption of drafts X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: General Area Dispatch List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 10:11:31 -0000 On 18/5/20 09:19, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote: [....] > > As I almost always do, I'd phrase guidance on this topic as > recommendations - we really do trust working group chairs to make bigger > decisions about working group consensus for the benefit of their working > groups. Not sure what you mean. But if I understand correctly, that's a double-edged sword. My understanding is that, ultimately, it's the wg (and not the chairs) that should make decisions. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 From nobody Fri May 22 13:22:38 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 083613A0AFA for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 13:22:36 -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 mq5gabAK18Yg for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 13:22:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pf1-x42f.google.com (mail-pf1-x42f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42f]) (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 908233A0911 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 13:22:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x42f.google.com with SMTP id n18so5682509pfa.2 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 13:22:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kFphyiXyCKKeDNiI19Sf/lhfYGaKza7I14Eap+DhgWE=; b=qtHJCAPKEwl14z3lJFje2AELOVXW4ApVEUPjeqi4x/3YOxNrntaOmZqrYWu9mdW4wL d0Pgcy7TG31EPF1XoDVdDzoSICQCjmShKaRaKIqkL1hnBA008w+WDrTskP4viCOodQ+u UKLCZ2xlSzTIMtzhHwPSuHT/Xri+QqifUdVdiDlr85qmDw27n2todoXNQZImLoXHMv05 5Eudn9nhFWebwpmX4rPXkHUCoagfLR0txhdPJ1RA3WYxVTztUMUdmTSmARQeOOQ8oSKJ mre8sMxcV/LyWUYsz2uvc09jTbe9wRsBGUAaV+Xhwq2N/yKEB5xACO0kU3Nunw2mUwxT /RHA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=kFphyiXyCKKeDNiI19Sf/lhfYGaKza7I14Eap+DhgWE=; b=iOoSU7TBknuoZOZgJywNmlolzixx4L96O+KajzqnqluaLw2IXE4z+1rGh413sdtl7c DBrE5++p1njjfbvQHE0kBJ1rNgj6BLkPJdM38zi14WsqvCEvBbIc7N2c3WBWsRP+dvFL KaEHu+iavwfIrJR2RqWkx8Eem0iYDLn2jMKk3mOuzRiR15TDJaApOlhL7dyJXj7n1+hV XmUS1Mv+in+v+qLttypq9qmGKlQYUshi8xmtNLYUxd19LSbM310skXW7wfU+c39Wi0wV +CdCo/1Mbk9/hPpjWLzqYPAKE4qzgIUEm8E/X7mtcSfGJg+owa22Uw5Q9M7aO+XeYDW8 0iPw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531E9f620IbGDzLF6PzRreqJxy4VRQWLyI0kbEAJh7jC7kqXGion kNFVPNS+et7DSvYkXmkh8xuBdY5V X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzpk4Kq2mNFiMSWAjInRz7La9VRpZ4S0HdTajzfv/lyj7ej0asAmVweRE9/SrK9qGnuTi5xKg== X-Received: by 2002:a63:7d53:: with SMTP id m19mr16137633pgn.168.1590178953739; Fri, 22 May 2020 13:22:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([165.84.12.178]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g1sm7473322pfb.191.2020.05.22.13.22.31 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 22 May 2020 13:22:32 -0700 (PDT) To: Fernando Gont , Spencer Dawkins at IETF Cc: gendispatch@ietf.org References: <093c8506-4903-770d-45a8-1f2be879f510@si6networks.com> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: Date: Sat, 23 May 2020 08:22:29 +1200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <093c8506-4903-770d-45a8-1f2be879f510@si6networks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: [Gendispatch] Appealing a non-decision [Possible topic: WG adoption of drafts] X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: General Area Dispatch List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 20:22:36 -0000 On 22-May-20 21:56, Fernando Gont wrote: ... >> And my understanding is that we can appeal almost anything using the >> procedures in RFC 2026, if that's what you're referring to. > > I guess you can. But how would you e.g. Appeal a non-decision? I believe that the very first appeal ever was an appeal against non-action by the IESG. The record seems to be mixed up with a second appeal by somebody else: https://www.iab.org/appeals/1995-2/appeal-against-iesg-inaction-by-mr-dave-cocker-mr-w-simpson-appeal-iab-response-february-1995/ 2026 actually says that it "specifies the procedures that shall be followed to deal with Internet standards issues that cannot be resolved through the normal processes whereby IETF Working Groups and other Internet Standards Process participants ordinarily reach consensus." Not reaching a decision seems like an Internet standards issue to me. Regards Brian From nobody Sat May 30 20:35:55 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5B253A116B for ; Sat, 30 May 2020 20:35:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.097 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 6E1Rj4gQzbhV for ; Sat, 30 May 2020 20:35:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf1-x12e.google.com (mail-lf1-x12e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12e]) (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 C1BCF3A116C for ; Sat, 30 May 2020 20:35:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-x12e.google.com with SMTP id d7so1946676lfi.12 for ; Sat, 30 May 2020 20:35:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=531FM9Rrws/ibhLaUgoMx+fYpJrk+WS6E4VY6Tn04Bo=; b=cy3DykvvThtiDKmswov/GKtPO4+kjiw9R+VCBl2RVSFEShZ7GG6QW4/1jkgTCW9IaD 1QF7twl/X7q/jrVCrIJgGOWYSnDEMpZ78f1ZR7Tre2sgZ05Bbw6fGsZmF4YsQc0REl83 v4euMaS29JWLAtha3e9xO46WlY8etEf0xcxmx4RirHC8m3ppjHlG+BrKL3WJ57mmKsFA PjTKvFwAL/cFrb5qOfaSPKY34aj8IDdHEyjVZNhL12wgZhYwTRRyrembqPfq0dldeSDv c8nwcC7F/Ax0AU2oSyBiPrx3fkYmuEukqMuI45VXO+zxZ1gyPQCxEPIo2WRb5ep0rWSN R8og== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=531FM9Rrws/ibhLaUgoMx+fYpJrk+WS6E4VY6Tn04Bo=; b=KGPS6WLFWBxIzn/eTsN+1FC3xtKC+Uxf5C28W44ynvqNpKBJzT+pHtvII4SFxOF2tN ugBSiHd+muqXe2tsBAEGWXHTktmdYzVJYnJNtEYFcIDRh9CYKBn/HzMA99ZK6tA7U2Er I6hZf057DMni8AsYz4RNJtJuZFDxjPoaJr0gwDIHTtiljNNamTdpX29UDJe/gDe2PeJa 2V78QmgbAI9loDuM1BIgIkvMgt8jaLQUnMxVjQsfq/JEEG+MOeL8D92bCH0gN1pYid5x nIa4FVDBQpHhssE0ELh5p3+coeTv1R+6fU8k1r/HB2aiQ7oVIStwozlQmv6jZc+ocjlj gmpQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531o6TwYiCN8K+WFZwo3AsIFWd7HmhsSnncDf+trAtQwDApvg0+u 8HgN79Ed0A0Wjzu+Ahf5S635PWpwK9MHH4rjcorQ5ogH X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwF7mK0O3xMPoKEpMAzZ80z98MxUi5TgY0yQhJbLWwlkg1huCbbx+FkkPd1ftliOjFGxJ43cEt59XRsJGGZLz0= X-Received: by 2002:a19:6914:: with SMTP id e20mr8176336lfc.27.1590896149879; Sat, 30 May 2020 20:35:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <142aaa6b-bf69-2995-ba2e-a9ae33027e07@si6networks.com> In-Reply-To: <142aaa6b-bf69-2995-ba2e-a9ae33027e07@si6networks.com> From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 22:35:39 -0500 Message-ID: To: Fernando Gont Cc: gendispatch@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e3606805a6e95f81" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] Possible topic: WG adoption of drafts X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: General Area Dispatch List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 03:35:54 -0000 --000000000000e3606805a6e95f81 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi, Fernando, On Fri, May 22, 2020, 05:11 Fernando Gont wrote: > On 18/5/20 09:19, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote: > [....] > > > > As I almost always do, I'd phrase guidance on this topic as > > recommendations - we really do trust working group chairs to make bigger > > decisions about working group consensus for the benefit of their working > > groups. > > Not sure what you mean. > You can explain why something is a good idea or a bad idea (guidance), or you can use normative language. > But if I understand correctly, that's a double-edged sword. My > understanding is that, ultimately, it's the wg (and not the chairs) that > should make decisions. > Right. And the chairs judge whether the working group has consensus on the decision, and if they screw that up, that's when the appeals process starts ;-) Best, Spencer > Thanks, > -- > Fernando Gont > SI6 Networks > e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com > PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 > > > > > --000000000000e3606805a6e95f81 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi, Fernando,

On Fri, May 22, 2020, 05:11 Fernando Gont= <fgont@si6networks.com>= wrote:
On 18/5/20 09:19, Spencer D= awkins at IETF wrote:
[....]
>
> As I almost always do, I'd phrase guidance on this topic as
> recommendations - we really do trust working group chairs to make bigg= er
> decisions about working group=C2=A0consensus for the benefit of their = working
> groups.

Not sure what you mean.

<= /div>
You can explain why something is a good idea or a ba= d idea (guidance), or you can use normative language.=C2=A0


But if I understand correctly, that's a double-edged sword. My
understanding is that, ultimately, it's the wg (and not the chairs) tha= t
should make decisions.

Right. And the chairs judge whether the working group= has consensus on the decision, and if they screw that up, that's when = the appeals process starts ;-)

Best,

Spencer

=

Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492




--000000000000e3606805a6e95f81-- From nobody Sat May 30 20:42:04 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F8623A1177 for ; Sat, 30 May 2020 20:42:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.097 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 0vv4MqebKJDD for ; Sat, 30 May 2020 20:42:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lj1-x22e.google.com (mail-lj1-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22e]) (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 3BA8C3A1175 for ; Sat, 30 May 2020 20:42:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-x22e.google.com with SMTP id z18so3954022lji.12 for ; Sat, 30 May 2020 20:42:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=vtjQYrMuc05hZcxhmv7OgZz5cTZKb58W1CKEq2UQZ24=; b=A3yMHWC4It5frbvSjKE/sLhB16R8o53xRg8Z709pB+n/cZvE34xqhbfakxUZo+GHUC 3lg4j8i++FppE7DNaGym5BLnTuRIijhbpiU+Gz95hFEFydPXOYmhGrHSWNbVJtT0Bvjx ES0dd9St14aOsTEFYkCmgh9eUbI7rN+/Y9bQyH6/n5St6J5BITxd2RldwLuYdaMAa/19 /1HW4SVO3bE2U4NBsMtKCFIAuZyNmWDR6ChFvoyrjghM70vwfzGDvzuj5LhlNS1qMWtF 4uU+uhY9uzsbgysozbdc7MMg9i5orwp5Ejqy9hpHD2Fe/MLm9e8JnbCKSPwbfeXdTbvg wEgw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vtjQYrMuc05hZcxhmv7OgZz5cTZKb58W1CKEq2UQZ24=; b=kYMiePrueaBAEsAoMlkrhojCBBUp2pAFrwo09L+EK7JfOTat5bcdT4xMKbXSa/RjCg K5uUYc6h/2X4+Z+8xQ/1dl4FrMEM1cH7VpxOXFOosuVT4Iu3xvRJCeQRvSmszfFEOoEy K02A6feqtyq6k/PzpKQoirZ4RHYY8F+vRrOlJB/JlCE/DfQqyl4C+XyUDmp15qkCTXt4 P71u4y+ySrIUfDYhus984Cq1CMqed0GXopGrconPvGluYtkUG4HBxo7g7T8HJAMIUIlR efSJ/fsU+EtEnIpReupwEMuK6Ptp6a7bE5E3YYBE0zvjPuRmQ2RgJI1ljCuENTPxnQgb Y0tw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531ojvILpaKFWKR8t29ZvipRVV65y6bRugTlbWUexFvTRz9rQhB3 plQ+bBilq+Pe0N/IeLhR7Vfs34JE87W46Q0Y9FY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx0C4zbLj1E10ixEa2FJ/+Lt9/XiXkFW3heMHw46/HLg/UUpRhKLJ+p+2lx1/gzeC62XrD9yOxkaGm/im6s8Bo= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b04c:: with SMTP id d12mr7470218ljl.398.1590896518412; Sat, 30 May 2020 20:41:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <093c8506-4903-770d-45a8-1f2be879f510@si6networks.com> In-Reply-To: <093c8506-4903-770d-45a8-1f2be879f510@si6networks.com> From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 22:41:48 -0500 Message-ID: To: Fernando Gont Cc: gendispatch@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000dabf6505a6e97577" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] Possible topic: WG adoption of drafts X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: General Area Dispatch List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 03:42:03 -0000 --000000000000dabf6505a6e97577 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi, Fernando, On Fri, May 22, 2020, 04:56 Fernando Gont wrote: > Hi, Spencer, > > On 18/5/20 09:19, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote: > [....] > > the procedures in RFC2026. > > > > > > I agree that working group draft adoption is a widespread practice. As > > an individual participant, I certainly treat this as an important step > > for drafts I am working on. > > > > I agree that at least documenting the practice would be helpful to new > > participants. > > > > I don't know if it's universal across all working groups. That's > > probably a question that should also be asked on the wgchairs mailing > list. > > > > I don't know if this step is necessary for all drafts in working groups > > that use this practice - that's trying to guess the edge cases. > > Having a uniform practice among all wgs would be a good idea -- for many > reasons. > Agreed. The question is whether it's necessary for every document in every working group, or whether you're providing guidance, so that working groups can Do The Right Thing. We almost always have BOFs before we form working groups, but we don't REQUIRE that, and I formed one or two working groups without a BOF, because that was The Right Thing To Do. Same thing here. Best, Spencer > As I almost always do, I'd phrase guidance on this topic as > > recommendations - we really do trust working group chairs to make bigger > > decisions about working group consensus for the benefit of their working > > groups. So a RECOMMENDED BCP, or even an Informational draft, seems more > > useful than a REQUIRED BCP, with all the edge cases we usually trip over > > when we write such text. > > > > And my understanding is that we can appeal almost anything using the > > procedures in RFC 2026, if that's what you're referring to. > > I guess you can. But how would you e.g. Appeal a non-decision? > > > Thanks, > -- > Fernando Gont > SI6 Networks > e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com > PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 > > > > > --000000000000dabf6505a6e97577 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi, Fernando,

On Fri, May 22, 2020, 04:56 Fernando Gont= <fgont@si6networks.com>= wrote:
Hi, Spencer,

On 18/5/20 09:19, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
[....]
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0the procedures in RFC2026.
>
>
> I agree that working group draft adoption is a widespread practice. As=
> an individual participant, I certainly treat this as an important step=
> for drafts I am working on.
>
> I agree that at least documenting the practice would be helpful to new=
> participants.
>
> I don't know if it's universal across all working groups. That= 's
> probably a question that should also be asked on the wgchairs mailing = list.
>
> I don't know if this step is necessary for all drafts in working g= roups
> that use this practice - that's trying to guess the edge cases.
Having a uniform practice among all wgs would be a good idea -- for many reasons.

Agreed. The question is whether it's necessary for every docu= ment in every working group, or whether you're providing guidance, so t= hat working groups can Do The Right Thing.

We almost always have BOFs before we form working groups= , but we don't REQUIRE that, and I formed one or two working groups wit= hout a BOF, because that was The Right Thing To Do.
=
Same thing here.=C2=A0
<= br>
Best,

Spencer

> As I almost always= do, I'd phrase guidance on this topic as
> recommendations - we really do trust working group chairs to make bigg= er
> decisions about working group=C2=A0consensus for the benefit of their = working
> groups. So a RECOMMENDED BCP, or even an Informational draft, seems mo= re
> useful than a REQUIRED BCP, with all the edge cases we usually trip ov= er
> when we write such text.
>
> And my understanding is that we can appeal almost anything using the <= br> > procedures in RFC 2026, if that's what you're referring to.
I guess you can. But how would you e.g. Appeal a non-decision?


Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492




--000000000000dabf6505a6e97577-- From nobody Sat May 30 21:14:57 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18E8A3A11B0 for ; Sat, 30 May 2020 21:14:55 -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 IIm89Rvp9kQv for ; Sat, 30 May 2020 21:14:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pl1-x62e.google.com (mail-pl1-x62e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62e]) (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 944633A11AF for ; Sat, 30 May 2020 21:14:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x62e.google.com with SMTP id q16so2896482plr.2 for ; Sat, 30 May 2020 21:14:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=mUhcxy+EbHwl951PxpgadQ9g8tCrDo84BVISn5+q4QU=; b=TSbf8EawWi5/A+V0KTUkKY/bjnKzHBHjjp8qhg9kDNiv5lQuAVD5gpAfKU7720yplM Q+Svqu0s7/yZiYh4TgoceY62pbxytQhj0yJAu4O8isEOvjKRMO7OuNeP63JpXyA6k8BX XrebJ+cxc8NddSIfawJZM+Y6/8DgjWKh2cXNw6FD6suJ2I02yVzEgbuimoKS1L9PojyK 4y+ifOAD1ajQ9p4iAPzER7HTpjNzc0FVI/uCYzqYoMusX+PSdBChvmyk/CkaHsAY6JT3 MGzcRhrE7wbaMsiLgQoEv6hEdRep7u6o4/AiC4sp3PI5c+5VL2WwYHnTt8yJyy3fN1so xjhQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=mUhcxy+EbHwl951PxpgadQ9g8tCrDo84BVISn5+q4QU=; b=QT/I4aDGQouETGbK/f2m9IrQdExkf1gNr/LF1a2omgPFHVo+/EkQp3A2PI0Gl7VZol MIfB6FlzNKd7tiZuyDTKLqc/xJljxbXNdDxuiUqkUc5Nrk3crRfbKiAaGn4U0i4hUTOV VT5/vvrjkTW5UI929O9KXb9O8SQEegOg1D01UjjDOLRRLfr7BQUfPMtKmmPkfH+olBgg JUADBsMYYxYO+IxZ8USZvZPINDhro+3g78wDRO+EBRTQc/Xrq7T+XFp0CVuKSJynER2I zfRpS7FQBrVa0XCunvtkvvsGO7z9djbEyxRKtGZTvT4lQ9AuclN6hJ0w9bYislWTe84L /M3w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5330zsErV85YxHT8mJjDvK0kWCNWSEoKQ7Bbu5XugIq3+TDOblXb WZ3n76McDqDkdVYuEoT+SG/sQi08ZEU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwbH1YoHdX1yuiLkmrhe/SbCQr8wwPyDNfxTl/4xXCVLNJES2wincenaY6KMDuxI31xfcg9Gw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:170e:: with SMTP id z14mr5108340pjd.98.1590898491589; Sat, 30 May 2020 21:14:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([165.84.12.178]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x2sm4381291pff.103.2020.05.30.21.14.49 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 30 May 2020 21:14:51 -0700 (PDT) To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF , Fernando Gont Cc: gendispatch@ietf.org References: <093c8506-4903-770d-45a8-1f2be879f510@si6networks.com> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: <214bfdf0-31d2-5b8a-11e4-b6a02a47a4ad@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 16:14:46 +1200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] Possible topic: WG adoption of drafts X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: General Area Dispatch List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 04:14:55 -0000 On 31-May-20 15:41, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote: > Hi, Fernando, >=20 > On Fri, May 22, 2020, 04:56 Fernando Gont > wrote: >=20 > Hi, Spencer, >=20 > On 18/5/20 09:19, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote: > [....] > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0the procedures in RFC2026. > > > > > > I agree that working group draft adoption is a widespread practic= e. As > > an individual participant, I certainly treat this as an important= step > > for drafts I am working on. > > > > I agree that at least documenting the practice would be helpful t= o new > > participants. > > > > I don't know if it's universal across all working groups. That's > > probably a question that should also be asked on the wgchairs mai= ling list. > > > > I don't know if this step is necessary for all drafts in working = groups > > that use this practice - that's trying to guess the edge cases. >=20 > Having a uniform practice among all wgs would be a good idea -- for= many > reasons. >=20 >=20 > Agreed. The question is whether it's necessary for every document in ev= ery working group, or whether you're providing guidance, so that working = groups can Do The Right Thing. Sure. We're thinking along the lines of IF you want to do a formal adopti= on THEN here are the rules. Anyway... yes... a draft is planned. Soon. Brian >=20 > We almost always have BOFs before we form working groups, but we don't = REQUIRE that, and I formed one or two working groups without a BOF, becau= se that was The Right Thing To Do. >=20 > Same thing here.=C2=A0 >=20 > Best, >=20 > Spencer >=20 > > As I almost always do, I'd phrase guidance on this topic as > > recommendations - we really do trust working group chairs to make= bigger > > decisions about working group=C2=A0consensus for the benefit of t= heir working > > groups. So a RECOMMENDED BCP, or even an Informational draft, see= ms more > > useful than a REQUIRED BCP, with all the edge cases we usually tr= ip over > > when we write such text. > > > > And my understanding is that we can appeal almost anything using = the > > procedures in RFC 2026, if that's what you're referring to. >=20 > I guess you can. But how would you e.g. Appeal a non-decision? >=20 >=20 > Thanks, > --=20 > Fernando Gont > SI6 Networks > e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com > PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 From nobody Sat May 30 21:27:00 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CE323A11C9 for ; Sat, 30 May 2020 21:26:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 ROt5NdH2HW2q for ; Sat, 30 May 2020 21:26:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 678223A11C5 for ; Sat, 30 May 2020 21:26:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:11f:2c02:ebaa:1390:c00f] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:11f:2c02:ebaa:1390:c00f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C95EC2809CB; Sun, 31 May 2020 04:26:50 +0000 (UTC) To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF Cc: gendispatch@ietf.org References: <142aaa6b-bf69-2995-ba2e-a9ae33027e07@si6networks.com> From: Fernando Gont Message-ID: Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 01:22:14 -0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] Possible topic: WG adoption of drafts X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: General Area Dispatch List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 04:26:59 -0000 On 31/5/20 00:35, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote: > Hi, Fernando, > > On Fri, May 22, 2020, 05:11 Fernando Gont > wrote: > > On 18/5/20 09:19, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote: > [....] > > > > As I almost always do, I'd phrase guidance on this topic as > > recommendations - we really do trust working group chairs to make > bigger > > decisions about working group consensus for the benefit of their > working > > groups. [...] > > You can explain why something is a good idea or a bad idea (guidance), > or you can use normative language. Given that there's normative text for other parts of the standards process, I believe wg adoption should be covered by normative text, too. > But if I understand correctly, that's a double-edged sword. My > understanding is that, ultimately, it's the wg (and not the chairs) > that > should make decisions. > > Right. And the chairs judge whether the working group has consensus on > the decision, and if they screw that up, that's when the appeals process > starts ;-) That assumes the call for adoption has taken place. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem a common understanding on when calls for adoption should take place, or even what "adoption" actually means. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 From nobody Sun May 31 13:41:57 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 538E73A133B for ; Sun, 31 May 2020 13:41:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.097 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=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 tcJePN3yO-xh for ; Sun, 31 May 2020 13:41:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pl1-x62c.google.com (mail-pl1-x62c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62c]) (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 DC0173A1339 for ; Sun, 31 May 2020 13:41:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x62c.google.com with SMTP id t7so3419038plr.0 for ; Sun, 31 May 2020 13:41:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:references:to:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IOmxH4zb27vGBKmXuwpR/hMpFYZyv12D4dxofrBLdQA=; b=kE6bVD5KSuKkQgzO7Cenynf1TVwkJWNMjg8CG7veLCsmS6lLNw6yf5MEaXwLgNbJYt ZjxYI30dVKe9ejSkXcdBbK8u8UM3uqvAHnkc1rxCPd1snuruQvAf4EmXOpHC1vlmNCxn wLOM1menTjijCdhJQHgli7Y4ORaWuoDVmWKVxABAxTee+592s3cviECzQ38mwEqcYXPX xc5yNukzUIhF1ryrrf+hkdwGyn76goQ6df2ezTj/Bl1AyfOimJ0QzTnPOSYkBltENWUP dxDBIImqSD7mqk4+AXu48+a/EVCYlHIsjbD9s6RW2UwWbPfxWxKy86MCZV/du/+p57H/ UPjg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:references:to:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=IOmxH4zb27vGBKmXuwpR/hMpFYZyv12D4dxofrBLdQA=; b=YSmB2G4x+175rae+I1TsmZPujUFld/Odf1nrhzpdZMDtxS1knjo5LpLVs6BS4RkSTo UluN/kT12DxI15PXZ/HDu6WiFbVhL34V4IClyn/4MCWdAmaM581wYqJlbpQUYT6K2zQ1 V855B3kip5CVCSQmn/mIk3YdzpHOTz6ACLpSE3XBMT1qdTDrdynjPV/gomDhhErTngbv vecvoAXC2Fl9bph1k2VSi4svd7od/v/fUHaagVz6u1DQ1CqPYwwUa1coUzHkArzGVTus tiji3YN0O1fJ3zZQ4+abd3Qf1G9raiqJNMdaPC18eFM/nCjha6OfO+0kEZ3O1sPKsOMs pViA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5330Mq/6QpleETqkvSqYaULGmqgLDJo03RO1exGIosxcNXnYmsNO Nv6rOcSCzhxbjPBuTtjbwngGPH+ZHHY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwmAm5zL3JfnAUZeAXavphG1puTFpY+He/oj2vPNoJ7d2m1OMMlGBOyXt/1i6Nq9ao2YbZNcg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:b113:: with SMTP id z19mr20255006pjq.183.1590957711929; Sun, 31 May 2020 13:41:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([165.84.12.178]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z13sm12512276pfq.16.2020.05.31.13.41.50 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 31 May 2020 13:41:51 -0700 (PDT) References: <159095657517.28099.11048773867180071243@ietfa.amsl.com> To: gendispatch@ietf.org From: Brian E Carpenter X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <159095657517.28099.11048773867180071243@ietfa.amsl.com> Message-ID: Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 08:41:48 +1200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <159095657517.28099.11048773867180071243@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: [Gendispatch] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-gendispatch-draft-adoption-00.txt X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: General Area Dispatch List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 20:41:55 -0000 -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-gendispatch-draft-adoption-00.txt Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 13:22:55 -0700 From: internet-drafts@ietf.org Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Process for Working Group Adoption of Drafts Authors : Brian E. Carpenter Fernando Gont Michael Richardson Filename : draft-carpenter-gendispatch-draft-adoption-00.txt Pages : 7 Date : 2020-05-31 Abstract: IETF working groups often formally adopt drafts. This document specifies minimum requirements for this process, thereby extending RFC 2418. It also describes how an adopted draft may be withdrawn from the working group process. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-carpenter-gendispatch-draft-adoption/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-gendispatch-draft-adoption-00 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-carpenter-gendispatch-draft-adoption-00 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing list I-D-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt From nobody Sun May 31 13:57:19 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A471F3A0C08 for ; Sun, 31 May 2020 13:57:17 -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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 PFCEMyxy5GXa for ; Sun, 31 May 2020 13:57:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73B173A0C01 for ; Sun, 31 May 2020 13:57:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49ZrGN1lCpz6G8rC for ; Sun, 31 May 2020 13:57:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1590958636; bh=9xmYsFGmF/1L2qUJnfM28oIg0X2H2WTlnP8BgosdYRI=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=qrZemalqc9Ny2vKvVGMMJSH6Gw03ewSxC1GNPdoZQAec+gBSjCR5d4DX5fpRzJIoJ nQ2pw5ptBASJX6xKz7nAHDU1I3ccE2xZXvslnri4RVXzpPm/BzhX0tVm56QGESHmSt E2NXNjXd8rhvJkmd2cKv1CUiGq7lTbRsLPdsWkUo= X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.128.43] (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 49ZrGM5rJ8z6G88X for ; Sun, 31 May 2020 13:57:15 -0700 (PDT) To: gendispatch@ietf.org References: <159095657517.28099.11048773867180071243@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Joel Halpern Message-ID: <328015a3-869e-e2f1-598c-979a987661e2@joelhalpern.com> Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 16:57:14 -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: <159095657517.28099.11048773867180071243@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] I-D Action: draft-carpenter-gendispatch-draft-adoption-00.txt X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: General Area Dispatch List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 20:57:18 -0000 In section 2 on the effect of aadoption, should the text also note that when necessary the WG chairs may order the replacement of the document editors? Section 3 on Rules for Adoption ... includes in its example text the statement that a WG has implicitly agreed to adopt the text of a WG design team. I do not believe this is true, and would ask that the text and related comments be removed. To further complicate this texxt, it conflates WG adopt with giving agenda time. Those are not coupled. The second bullet in section 3 is confusing. It says that the call should be issued when there is clear interest in the draft. Mostly,as chair, I have used the call to find out if there is clear interest in the draft. Yes, I will issue an adoption call even if it is obviously going to succeed. But the interesting cases are when the authors think there is interest and the chairs are not so sure. The bullet in section 3 about "the IPR disclosures should be acceptable" needs some care. Working groups MUST NOT engage in negotiations about what are or are not acceptable IPR licensing terms. While workging groups are free to not work on a document due to the IPR, it is very hard to have discussion around that topic without venturing into waters we need to avoid. If we are going to keep this bullet (it is technically correct), it needs some warnings. The definition of the criterion "should not be in conflict with work elsewhere in the IETF" is far more complex than it appears. Conflicts needs to be addressed. Appropriateness of venue needs to be verified. As written, I as SFC co-chair should have objected to all the alternative service chaining techniques that have been brought forward and adopted in other working groups. While I dislike some of them, It is not my place to tell them they can't work on them. Section 4 talks about withdrawl of adoption. That can happen. But most of the time, what I have seen in the described case is simply to declare the document dead. Withdrawl of adoption would seem to require some additional motivation beyond declaring it dead. What? Why? Yours, Joel On 5/31/2020 4:22 PM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > > > Title : Process for Working Group Adoption of Drafts > Authors : Brian E. Carpenter > Fernando Gont > Michael Richardson > Filename : draft-carpenter-gendispatch-draft-adoption-00.txt > Pages : 7 > Date : 2020-05-31 > > Abstract: > IETF working groups often formally adopt drafts. This document > specifies minimum requirements for this process, thereby extending > RFC 2418. It also describes how an adopted draft may be withdrawn > from the working group process. From nobody Sun May 31 16:44:49 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B1F23A0825 for ; Sun, 31 May 2020 16:44:48 -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 jnFS2DkaOk72 for ; Sun, 31 May 2020 16:44:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pg1-x52f.google.com (mail-pg1-x52f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52f]) (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 58AFE3A081F for ; Sun, 31 May 2020 16:44:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x52f.google.com with SMTP id o6so2668158pgh.2 for ; Sun, 31 May 2020 16:44:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=v0QDxaDgyzG3KZIH0YqFdqyiqt/X3LVzT0EBCw1sqzM=; b=Cyr66IHmVaQaZ/qkeNao/TUGnuVcsJjGG3Pz0tmBfCt2VKGQmHwA819zIUjJ2EKXCC Q72gmTblisdysbAlRqutk8SHuAmmtorf//uA4P3IORfmjqmVTULWZMELqfPv7XRgqljE /SpQb36nSOOkXysv5eMvz21+1oR+p7DAJjrrFvztEhv4PdXHI3ws8hxSwrd25wDKdDed 5yaQvKK5a9VExDTbrBzTHVXCzp2uzyNmNtLHfnKLRZMSWu4CrkwtDZbVbRuvqdi3CqjB UCYKhRISeBi2tMS6SjjvmIeA8elO0xJ5O2JE3UGF9FgucWyHG6ca4Utvm+f/BNa6aA3o uGPg== 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-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=v0QDxaDgyzG3KZIH0YqFdqyiqt/X3LVzT0EBCw1sqzM=; b=DcXURjwjbkwojSZqMEbx1qE9OarJliGz7Y7Ek+hg3/ik4y/4X/XF4TVcB0NPopxdME CbDlP3Tc+TDW9qLn7Z63Li8ATknaBPa6UHjTOZRrJOBhrz1W2zYq/XxY4c8xbQcZ/DgR Sxn3fykb6wlDBMVIlkKGNrKBaAZdJWnP3mfiDsu/oas7cylhxb8VyWB3Dt9ammpBP5zy GR1GXnEhrnU7NdSY+iHMb7QJuZIgv5ZxjkfxertjJwSpIFWayQbw6OE7f/SyIlM4iZEc iagsjLZUuO6npy7b7vKgNtGsPhdZzFF32SYtMYXDgkSaSJEN79/RHcuWuVSFTI3pKNwu PRiA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Xzt20meYUHLLkeR6pnKzQVEKqA/HjGAEn29/TiY09COOsjpGe H2FAsAHQTJP3OPEkSOG6dCXgAGSWziI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJybmwuAWb8kOsrYb8+S/mE3Fb/aRi8aJUAFwKD3B7PwKQOhbppBH/m4fyD9bzXD8vViOhzB1A== X-Received: by 2002:a62:fc06:: with SMTP id e6mr17891437pfh.125.1590968686562; Sun, 31 May 2020 16:44:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([165.84.12.178]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j15sm5925338pjj.12.2020.05.31.16.44.44 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 31 May 2020 16:44:45 -0700 (PDT) To: Joel Halpern , gendispatch@ietf.org References: <159095657517.28099.11048773867180071243@ietfa.amsl.com> <328015a3-869e-e2f1-598c-979a987661e2@joelhalpern.com> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 11:44:41 +1200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <328015a3-869e-e2f1-598c-979a987661e2@joelhalpern.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] I-D Action: draft-carpenter-gendispatch-draft-adoption-00.txt X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: General Area Dispatch List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 23:44:49 -0000 Thanks Joel. My responses in line: On 01-Jun-20 08:57, Joel Halpern wrote: > In section 2 on the effect of aadoption, should the text also note that > when necessary the WG chairs may order the replacement of the document > editors? > > Section 3 on Rules for Adoption ... includes in its example text the > statement that a WG has implicitly agreed to adopt the text of a WG > design team. I do not believe this is true, and would ask that the text > and related comments be removed. OK, we should check what BCP text there is already about design teams, and update accordingly. > To further complicate this texxt, it > conflates WG adopt with giving agenda time. Those are not coupled. Yes, we can improve that. > The second bullet in section 3 is confusing. It says that the call > should be issued when there is clear interest in the draft. Mostly,as > chair, I have used the call to find out if there is clear interest in > the draft. Yes, I will issue an adoption call even if it is obviously > going to succeed. But the interesting cases are when the authors think > there is interest and the chairs are not so sure. Yes, there is a certain circularity here. Will rephrase. > The bullet in section 3 about "the IPR disclosures should be acceptable" > needs some care. Working groups MUST NOT engage in negotiations about > what are or are not acceptable IPR licensing terms. While workging > groups are free to not work on a document due to the IPR, it is very > hard to have discussion around that topic without venturing into waters > we need to avoid. If we are going to keep this bullet (it is > technically correct), it needs some warnings. Agreed. > The definition of the criterion "should not be in conflict with work > elsewhere in the IETF" is far more complex than it appears. Conflicts > needs to be addressed. Appropriateness of venue needs to be verified. > As written, I as SFC co-chair should have objected to all the > alternative service chaining techniques that have been brought forward > and adopted in other working groups. While I dislike some of them, It > is not my place to tell them they can't work on them. Yes, again we need to expand the point a bit. > Section 4 talks about withdrawl of adoption. That can happen. But most > of the time, what I have seen in the described case is simply to declare > the document dead. Withdrawl of adoption would seem to require some > additional motivation beyond declaring it dead. What? Why? To return change control to the authors, for example if they want to submit the draft to the Independent Submissions scheme. Thanks, Brian > > Yours, > Joel > On 5/31/2020 4:22 PM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. >> >> >> Title : Process for Working Group Adoption of Drafts >> Authors : Brian E. Carpenter >> Fernando Gont >> Michael Richardson >> Filename : draft-carpenter-gendispatch-draft-adoption-00.txt >> Pages : 7 >> Date : 2020-05-31 >> >> Abstract: >> IETF working groups often formally adopt drafts. This document >> specifies minimum requirements for this process, thereby extending >> RFC 2418. It also describes how an adopted draft may be withdrawn >> from the working group process. >