From nobody Wed Dec 16 04:07:49 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@iab.org Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61BE23A0A20; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 04:07:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: IETF Meeting Session Request Tool To: Cc: lear@cisco.com, rfced-future@iab.org, rfcefdp-chairs@ietf.org, The IAB X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.23.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <160812046589.14958.11111821720707595272@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 04:07:46 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] rfcefdp - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 110 X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 12:07:46 -0000 A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Eliot Lear, a Chair of the rfcefdp working group. --------------------------------------------------------- Working Group Name: RFC Editor Future Development Area Name: Internet Architecture Board Session Requester: Eliot Lear Number of Sessions: 1 Length of Session(s): 2 Hours Number of Attendees: 60 Conflicts to Avoid: Chair Conflict: rum dispatch stir sipcore emu opsawg anima People who must be present: Eliot Lear Brian Rosen Resources Requested: Special Requests: --------------------------------------------------------- From nobody Wed Dec 16 05:16:01 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC5AE3A0AF3 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 05:16:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 ui8Q15-IoKvf for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 05:15:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0F8E3A0AE6 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 05:15:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3620; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1608124558; x=1609334158; h=from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:to; bh=HQbUGDD4TFafz51GFDDNdI8vLLJMybgd7vDwVkPtbBE=; b=V6132dgAGIbm1QwXz0Qf/f/gOhSKxeREKx2A2pTHBv/NvzuyMWuB12JP riTI6oxM/Eu7dzmrAruWZi1aoeJfWnsddymyEA7bi2VDyRotg3LcM28sU YRrVfwiqGowHCifp62CHj7ZevB0a/rf9bqtdL+2IOSaIfaWkMSft/ZgSR Y=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DUBQDiB9pf/xbLJq1iHgEBCxIMhS5XASAShG2JBJw+h?= =?us-ascii?q?jOBaAQHAQEBCgMBASUKBAEBhj0mOBMCAwEBAQMCAwEBAQEFAQEBAgEGBHGFY?= =?us-ascii?q?QyGHHUBPQKEGAGDBg+dd44cdoEyilgKBoE4gVOLUkGCAIE4HIVxBBQDgREBE?= =?us-ascii?q?gFugkozgiwEgliBIk8WgUicDZwdgn4EgyGBN4RHkigDH4MmiiaFLo9DnxKJB?= =?us-ascii?q?okog20CBAYFAhWBbSNncDMaCBsVZQGCPz0SGQ2SEopZQANnAgYBCQEBAwmKQ?= =?us-ascii?q?QEB?= X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.78,424,1599523200"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="29523593" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 16 Dec 2020 13:15:53 +0000 Received: from [10.61.163.239] ([10.61.163.239]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 0BGDFo2s021485 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 13:15:53 GMT From: Eliot Lear Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_33EBA9AC-9D65-494B-A4B1-6D3EAB1787AA"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) Message-Id: Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 14:15:49 +0100 To: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.163.239, [10.61.163.239] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] Doodling for January meeting X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 13:16:01 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_33EBA9AC-9D65-494B-A4B1-6D3EAB1787AA Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FDA63DE9-1447-46CB-A725-D09CAE11EADF" --Apple-Mail=_FDA63DE9-1447-46CB-A725-D09CAE11EADF Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi everyone, With apologies for the delay, here is the doodle for the January = meeting. https://doodle.com/poll/rpbyfrkiy36bim75?utm_source=3Dpoll&utm_medium=3Dli= nk = Please note that there are two time slots selected. I want to explain = why each is there: One slot is an afternoon US/Eastern slot / morning Auckland slot. The = time is also not ridiculously unreasonable for Europe (certainly not = compared to this week=E2=80=99s call). The other slot is one the I had indicated in an earlier email, but is = more inconvenient for Auckland (I=E2=80=99m using that also as a proxy = for Melbourne). Please if you could complete the poll by Friday, We plan to schedule it = next week. Eliot --Apple-Mail=_FDA63DE9-1447-46CB-A725-D09CAE11EADF Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Hi = everyone,

With = apologies for the delay, here is the doodle for the January = meeting.

https://doodle.com/poll/rpbyfrkiy36bim75?utm_source=3Dpoll&= utm_medium=3Dlink

Please note that there are two time slots selected.  I = want to explain why each is there:

  • One slot is an afternoon US/Eastern slot / morning Auckland = slot.  The time is also not ridiculously unreasonable for Europe = (certainly not compared to this week=E2=80=99s call).
  • The other slot is one the I had indicated in an earlier = email, but is more inconvenient for Auckland (I=E2=80=99m using that = also as a proxy for Melbourne).

Please if you could complete the = poll by Friday, We plan to schedule it next week.
Eliot
= --Apple-Mail=_FDA63DE9-1447-46CB-A725-D09CAE11EADF-- --Apple-Mail=_33EBA9AC-9D65-494B-A4B1-6D3EAB1787AA Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAl/aCIUACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejMFfggAgry+IWnxERwI1wdCuw3R/q847/s+ibVqJUdRpmfMy7jHm1m9eJo872lG Gzp+ZsT7VRAAz25n8h8chQBQLqXEtIovrN19k82Kt6yzEA/5gYtdGNHHmVb8/SU7 WiYUTRLvSXH+eOyZWh8+8HO4NOCAQLITIB7tbiTAYWhXO1uX8faSSet+us15xVbI 9YVMbs6QmhTIRU13OA3y/BuFepxm6Wec6LgRMTsCWzTJQCWTzbDyVsijGGsR9l/9 Kj3jFQNdnTOzDdAJs7k5h9ff5x4O8AIjD9GoLH9wjzuxNZcqPYlQ/sB+zF43MUQX /yJtu+6HnpNIahonzJt8eU3wnGrwZg== =rusV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_33EBA9AC-9D65-494B-A4B1-6D3EAB1787AA-- From nobody Wed Dec 16 13:04:01 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC19D3A1093 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 13:03:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, 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, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 kqMVcgmJ_02E for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 13:03:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FB773A1078 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 13:03:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1108; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1608152638; x=1609362238; h=from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:to; bh=0bNi876X4Cys34ySM6afnUGwdVjLQSIRW0dhh1gyTOs=; b=XoWTZ/+85JUTk0MfoTovY7bK4b36Jt+Y98bUyyiInRFXaBK87cEQSePC Rt6kZqcUOv5Q0ZnS0W15VUJwHVSJYktJ6ykBPQnaQ7wpLka6hqRIAnoSO 1040+AL6UW6yUb+zwhChA55f+57EyX+oVnJxqfLYIvNT/zOiMWgZEuOfg 8=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0C8AwCUddpfjBbLJq1igliDdgEgEoRtiQSHfZpggXwEB?= =?us-ascii?q?wEBAQoDAQEvBAEBhj0mNgcOAgMBAQEDAgMBAQEBBQEBAQIBBgQUAQEBAYZGh?= =?us-ascii?q?hyBMwKEGAGDBp5Ojhx2gTKKXhCBOIFTjBOCAIE4DBCCVj6FC4JKM4IsBIJvg?= =?us-ascii?q?SxEnVWcHYJ+gyWBN5ZvAxYJgxQBj2WPQ7FAg20CBAYFAhWBXQongVkzGggbF?= =?us-ascii?q?WUBgj89EhkNjjuOMEADZwIGAQkBAQMJij0BAQ?= X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.78,425,1599523200"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="31906622" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 16 Dec 2020 21:03:54 +0000 Received: from [10.61.242.111] ([10.61.242.111]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 0BGL3rkI018116 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 21:03:54 GMT From: Eliot Lear Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8D20ECD7-D33D-4BFB-A64F-7B95EDF22B8F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) Message-Id: Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 22:03:53 +0100 To: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.242.111, [10.61.242.111] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] reminder: interim meeting tomorrow X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 21:04:00 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_8D20ECD7-D33D-4BFB-A64F-7B95EDF22B8F Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Chairs=E2=80=99 slides have been uploaded. Current agenda is to continue working through issues 12, 24, and 13. = Maybe touch on 14. Eliot --Apple-Mail=_8D20ECD7-D33D-4BFB-A64F-7B95EDF22B8F Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAl/adjkACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejOZdgf+KN/KroFqEjo4EttNrfe89Mnl2Oe1WNm1TDOAvsGMDcJ4/pm/+j0t5xZr H/A1QsvMtX1jnDkLPJ1ECyIqxE/O7D0ce7SsLXTFhq2IV5jy9RXvI2fYvXAXG2Os vu13DmiMvJlSI6iYYmusaZeFst+1beTaOnCOdKZ6MRBGh712Iz5ZLyKgShIKfM0+ caPBq0Zpx/q2G/8JCTFib1L2VPEyurjllqwOFKQ1fkqz/vVWLu3NjZyxCLYIWX/W ZG5BuQDBAxVbKrlKHl87JO+TH2vU+oHXfXp7IdRc5rSsd5eFYBrlpDn4NiE5RwYn xW1H3MI68sgbU2NsnKqaGLviXB6r8Q== =a3PQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_8D20ECD7-D33D-4BFB-A64F-7B95EDF22B8F-- From nobody Fri Dec 18 01:17:17 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFC403A11A2 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 01:17:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 it8G-8mpmhcC for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 01:17:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFE413A11A0 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 01:17:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5675; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1608283033; x=1609492633; h=from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:to; bh=Siq7n0koz+GURy8UUvVpR/dF4YLmukArTPYMY+zMu0U=; b=YGTKNNnGwM6mLzOtivKSDZr/K7C20EaYaufDaZ7h7XG4Lg7lnAPeRi1g JuOGllYz46UKyVi+uRHO5Olx3Dt+Mdp4gpTRUQw1bP216c0Jyu3AAeADO xcOyJKfLq/04/gUhoyuOgR1xCpSe8mHhfWc6c/dVFHNml82TamDqRr8MA Q=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BYAAAnc9xflxbLJq1GHB0BAQEBCQESAQUFAUCBPgUBC?= =?us-ascii?q?wGDHlcBIBIujUOHfCWUHYY0gWgEBwEBAQoDAQEkCwQBAYZAJjcGDgIDAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?wIDAQEBAQUBAQECAQYEFAEBAQEBAQEBhjYMhxGEWAGDBg9Ang2NYDx0gTSEQ?= =?us-ascii?q?gIBhhIKBoE4AYFSi1JBggCBEScMEIFBaAEsgxsCAgEWgQeBDIJ9giwEg04IJ?= =?us-ascii?q?B8wFgsCP5Ehi2ecH4J+BIMhgTeER5IoAx+DJoonhS+PQ58VkjCDbQIEBgUCF?= =?us-ascii?q?YFsIoFDDwczGggbFWUBgj4+EhkNji0OCYNOhRSFRUADMAIJLAIGCgEBAwmMN?= =?us-ascii?q?lwBAQ?= X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.78,430,1599523200"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="32014731" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 18 Dec 2020 09:17:09 +0000 Received: from [10.61.230.143] ([10.61.230.143]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 0BI9H6eF032375 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 09:17:08 GMT From: Eliot Lear Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_45D8A1AA-B6E8-4597-BE1D-F234427F8423"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) Message-Id: Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 10:17:05 +0100 To: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.230.143, [10.61.230.143] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-1.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] Recording of our interim meeting X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 09:17:16 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_45D8A1AA-B6E8-4597-BE1D-F234427F8423 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A55ECA58-C924-47E0-82D0-388A439806C8" --Apple-Mail=_A55ECA58-C924-47E0-82D0-388A439806C8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi everyone, Thank you to everyone who attended our interim meeting. I am really = pleased with how we progressed issue 12 on RSA responsibilities, and I = have hope for us now finding common ground on the board / wg discussion. = A particular thank you to Brian Rosen who captured as much as he could = on etherpad, and to several of you who had to rearrange your schedules = to participate. For those who missed the meeting, the recording is available here = . The etherpad notes are here = We will = post the minutes in due course. I will follow this note up with several = consensus checks. One thing I have already done is created the file on = Github that we discussed as the role of the RS[EA]. You can see that = here = . A reminder, please take part in the Doodle = going = on for the next meeting which closes today. Eliot --Apple-Mail=_A55ECA58-C924-47E0-82D0-388A439806C8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Hi = everyone,

Thank you = to everyone who attended our interim meeting.  I am really pleased = with how we progressed issue 12 on RSA responsibilities, and I have hope = for us now finding common ground on the board / wg discussion.  A = particular thank you to Brian Rosen who captured as much as he could on = etherpad, and to several of you who had to rearrange your schedules to = participate.

For= those who missed the meeting, the recording is available here.  The etherpad notes are here   We will post the minutes in due course. =  I will follow this note up with several consensus checks. =  One thing I have already done is created the file on Github that = we discussed as the role of the RS[EA].  You can see that here.

A reminder, please take part in the Doodle going on for the next = meeting which closes today.

Eliot




= --Apple-Mail=_A55ECA58-C924-47E0-82D0-388A439806C8-- --Apple-Mail=_45D8A1AA-B6E8-4597-BE1D-F234427F8423 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAl/cc5EACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejNlXggAuqcL0nbA5+RYYMzEBQQx4SrskkWFGkpK3oaNOCF8mM7RRazZM72OW1er VFXvtbb9QtAnsjeluTMBTr+mj/qQMbQX4wvuApIwt/WZ6KKH3PQGY5xI7yTNoDfw Q+ohM1d2LZ52rcboWibtLer/+qejenn5STUevT3XGKO6RJOV8KdBzdy66Jl4Ow0o jqKoqVttJjxiJRcW2hq/2imyxLp2wBKhwak5a//wsG7WtWoZmISNgSLJA4O6yn74 774g+r+kcRkuutInWISbqU0xyYr33yZd6CqJZgM3EBksycpa9JOBhO2AObIFhEXg U9/QdEGLDMctdyrYH2RpxpxP7Ic/HQ== =aGDD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_45D8A1AA-B6E8-4597-BE1D-F234427F8423-- From nobody Fri Dec 18 01:42:22 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C70813A11EC for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 01:42:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.3 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-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_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 39Olf8sYQjnE for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 01:42:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1F183A11EA for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 01:42:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5404; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1608284538; x=1609494138; h=from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:to; bh=ip/4wgvr+TsGYoO7SVeroQIKhm2XKNy4chB/hpnj4X0=; b=WIGvfgBmjRzucDZBFrvNSKraKqr6k0rCiHlfBeCw+ECpffw4KaCh1fO7 mlYpZUjeCVpgYnpFkKY5G4hTcmo/yvuj5M2i5Nje95BeD2MocH6U3gDbb Vxtfa+nZVqwo1XizTASVVuLLrVub1qIg8ktuJw63YBk33BtLlsq3fMECI o=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CNAQABedxflxbLJq1YCh4BAQsSDECBRAuDH1cBIBIuj?= =?us-ascii?q?UOIIZEHgxaGNIFoBAcBAQEKAwEBJwgEAQGGQCY3Bg4CAwEBAQMCAwEBAQEFA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAgEGBBQBAQEBAQEBAYY2DIZkByaEWAGDBg+eUY4cdIE0imAKBoE4gVOME?= =?us-ascii?q?4IAgTgcgxSCXQICgSADDYN3giwEgVprXwMiGRgfgSpIkDMMi2mbEIEPgn6DJ?= =?us-ascii?q?YE3hEeJbIdIdAMfgyaKJ4Uvj0OOSpBLkWtFg20CBAYFAhWBbCKBWTMaCBsVO?= =?us-ascii?q?yoBgj4+EhkNjjuDV4pZQAMwDygCBgoBAQMJjRIBAQ?= X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.78,430,1599523200"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="32015394" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 18 Dec 2020 09:42:14 +0000 Received: from [10.61.230.143] ([10.61.230.143]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 0BI9gDxN004221 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 09:42:14 GMT From: Eliot Lear Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5A8B117E-05D2-47A3-B1C0-289ED574CD08"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) Message-Id: <99E11840-6AEB-46B5-A436-510B5FB7133E@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 10:42:12 +0100 To: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.230.143, [10.61.230.143] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] Issue 12: Consensus check on baseline text X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 09:42:21 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_5A8B117E-05D2-47A3-B1C0-289ED574CD08 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_33760047-5A61-4CD9-BA46-E4483D0462CF" --Apple-Mail=_33760047-5A61-4CD9-BA46-E4483D0462CF Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Dear all, In the last interim, we agreed that the following text should be the = starting point for text to describe the role of the RS[EA]. Could you = please state concerns about this text as a starting point no later than = 8 January 2020? You can also find it in GH here = . Feel free to create PRs, but please discuss them on list. Eliot Role of the RFC Series Editor = Draft! Please submit PRs, but discuss on list. This person will be a senior professional with deep knowledge of = technical publishing. The RSE will operate by providing expert advice to the RSAWG, and if = requested, to the RPC, on any relevant matters. The value this = individual provides is an understanding of the process of technical = publishing. They expected to learn how the process is applied in the RFC = series. They will be asked to produce regular reviews of the process and = identify problems and opportunities for improvement. There are also = opportunities to spontaneously learn of these problems, likely the = result of interactions with day-to-day operations. The person may be = requested to draft documents For example, the RSE might be consulted about proposed changes to the = style guide, RFC formatting in general, web presence, copyright matters, = or archiving policy, or might of their own initiative suggest such = changes to the RSAWG. The RSE is expected to attend all RSAWG meetings, and to have an ongoing = working relationship with the RPC and tooling team. --Apple-Mail=_33760047-5A61-4CD9-BA46-E4483D0462CF Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Dear all,

In the last interim, we agreed that the following text should be the starting point for text to describe the role of the RS[EA].  Could you please state concerns about this text as a starting point no later than 8 January 2020?  You can also find it in GH here.   Feel free to create PRs, but please discuss them on list.

Eliot

Role of the RFC Series Editor

Draft! Please submit PRs, but discuss on list.

This person will be a senior professional with deep knowledge of technical publishing.

The RSE will operate by providing expert advice to the RSAWG, and if requested, to the RPC, on any relevant matters. The value this individual provides is an understanding of the process of technical publishing. They expected to learn how the process is applied in the RFC series. They will be asked to produce regular reviews of the process and identify problems and opportunities for improvement. There are also opportunities to spontaneously learn of these problems, likely the result of interactions with day-to-day operations. The person may be requested to draft documents

For example, the RSE might be consulted about proposed changes to the style guide, RFC formatting in general, web presence, copyright matters, or archiving policy, or might of their own initiative suggest such changes to the RSAWG.

The RSE is expected to attend all RSAWG meetings, and to have an ongoing working relationship with the RPC and tooling team.

--Apple-Mail=_33760047-5A61-4CD9-BA46-E4483D0462CF-- --Apple-Mail=_5A8B117E-05D2-47A3-B1C0-289ED574CD08 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAl/ceXQACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejO7EAf9FdTZWxpPda0gEucRgcrPrG3TU5YTHj8FIYRNheLNxjTBl4zCnqpRxw78 5Q4HiwQHbXpZoIf1q4ulC+jltSvJfFyNX0gPv7H9zbzXt3JHa2ukWQ6H5IC5gT/R iPW3lwEu1HB5BzVfNYUbBNS0XJIIRHFs5SXvCJ5dcqrjGlRRAWd9vN1gI/WZJ5Rk 7BdJOXjuACxpakPa391UgVPIkliaB3FFrOaUBRbXRYBQqfi3lI9QqFC6n7RfbB8R NkXx4Wit5uy303zkwP0gd597u7CJJ8vqmXW4IZu8/v0uy78j0f6zUE2q000ALFvu +QStK3lEF7gRLkrqGx3YB+GLJ1QY2Q== =+NKc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_5A8B117E-05D2-47A3-B1C0-289ED574CD08-- From nobody Fri Dec 18 01:52:41 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDE5E3A11EE for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 01:52:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 q2C6uCFe96MZ for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 01:52:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 280943A11EC for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 01:52:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4143; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1608285158; x=1609494758; h=from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:to; bh=iQkDAyJJvaPkjKUSf72eSmcbf2ADqXSLlwjpXt/3+Qg=; b=JuN0dV3M59jDy9JiDCRuIzCtZ5GD+ynz0oBC3OI/iTul382tVJ6SguPf RbZikiL5cPNI/wm1H/hPv+B/iyo+yqe5AAKrIpNJdmaez+nBwE3flytGg DEUgsrUAspcB36PSTPrBlp5UIcpBf5AS/UzXX8LOTIR35I09pRN7+vYW6 M=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CVAQAne9xflxbLJq1igliDH1cBIBKEbYkEh32UQogcB?= =?us-ascii?q?AcBAQEKAwEBIwwEAQGGQSY3Bg4CAwEBAQMCAwEBAQEFAQEBAgEGBBQBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAYY2DIV0BCRLEBo+AoQYAYJmIA+eY44cdoEyimIKBoE4gVOME4IAgTgME?= =?us-ascii?q?IIobIJdAoIsgkozgiwEgkWBNR8Cbp0qnB+CfgSDIYE3hEeSKAIBH4MmiieFL?= =?us-ascii?q?49DnxWSMINtAgQGBQIVgWwigVkzGggbFWUBgj89EhkNjjsdgzqKWUADZwIGA?= =?us-ascii?q?QkBAQMJjRIBAQ?= X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.78,430,1599523200"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="32015550" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 18 Dec 2020 09:52:33 +0000 Received: from [10.61.230.143] ([10.61.230.143]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 0BI9qXHD005954 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 09:52:33 GMT From: Eliot Lear Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F7ABD521-36C3-49C4-BFEF-751545C4964E"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) Message-Id: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 10:52:32 +0100 To: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.230.143, [10.61.230.143] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] Consensus check on Issue 13: Is decision making in the strategic body open to all? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 09:52:40 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_F7ABD521-36C3-49C4-BFEF-751545C4964E Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F77AA972-96D8-4471-91B4-657BEFC6A922" --Apple-Mail=_F77AA972-96D8-4471-91B4-657BEFC6A922 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Yesterday the group agreed with the following text: > All strategic body meetings are open to the public, all discussions of = issues take place on open mailing lists, and anyone is welcome to = comment / discuss. Could you please indicate any concerns you have by the 8th of January? Note: there are several closely related issues here: Issue 13: Is decision making in the strategy body is open to all? = Issue 15: Who makes final decisions on strategy? = Let's refocus issue 13 on just participation and issue 15 on decision = making. If people are satisfied with the above text, we=E2=80=99ll = move to issue 15 for the rest o the discussion about how decisions are = made. Eliot --Apple-Mail=_F77AA972-96D8-4471-91B4-657BEFC6A922 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Yesterday the group agreed with the following text:

All = strategic body meetings are open to the public, all = discussions of issues take place on open = mailing lists, and anyone is welcome to comment / = discuss.

Could you please indicate any concerns you have by = the 8th of January?

Note: there are several closely related = issues here:

Issue 13: Is = decision making in the strategy body is open to all?
Issue 15: Who = makes final decisions on strategy?

Let's refocus issue 13 on just = participation and issue 15 on decision making.   If people are = satisfied with the above text, we=E2=80=99ll move to issue 15 for the = rest o the discussion about how decisions are made.

Eliot
= --Apple-Mail=_F77AA972-96D8-4471-91B4-657BEFC6A922-- --Apple-Mail=_F7ABD521-36C3-49C4-BFEF-751545C4964E Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAl/ce+AACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejM5vQf/cJrEanKxVZSs0qjbgMNHvxZKsx3TS3b7dS0bE//XVesvmLScBREiMjgQ drr6eYxZ7dVLfbWjBfn2hbqp0FP1eLKsWeBXONWpHKcUOy9foU8zCsm7kv99uMD/ BKTaUfiLn1hJnDHYCAfEy8YdtbQ7ww7qdSxDZyuzIVZkebxKrS1536cZ+P7d94Nv zUf6K7bYVjedbswHFWCIdPawfsnjRzzXwqSC6x0TcpFqAtjlXPAOjeyOEdEvCgbg Iz2T32DzOWre15pYWXhHgU8yobn5KPiTSeb8ylMWUdPg81iJDfuQte4WpoUc7mbQ 2HPmzJ5/YyW2xU1+dPhLGk85MoEJog== =JA2W -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_F7ABD521-36C3-49C4-BFEF-751545C4964E-- From nobody Sat Dec 19 08:31:57 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF3FF3A0B62 for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 08:31:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.889 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.889 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=unavailable 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 u_2Uq3KWVprx for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 08:31:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx43-out1.antispamcloud.com (mx43-out1.antispamcloud.com [138.201.61.189]) (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 3AA943A0B5B for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 08:31:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from xse15.mail2web.com ([66.113.196.15] helo=xse.mail2web.com) by mx135.antispamcloud.com with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kqf91-000mWi-Ms for rfced-future@iab.org; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 17:31:51 +0100 Received: from xsmtp22.mail2web.com (unknown [10.100.68.61]) by xse.mail2web.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Cyrpj1Pt1zDXp for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 08:31:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.5.2.18] (helo=xmail08.myhosting.com) by xsmtp22.mail2web.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kqf8v-0002VN-2q for rfced-future@iab.org; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 08:31:41 -0800 Received: (qmail 4763 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2020 16:38:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO [192.168.1.106]) (Authenticated-user:_huitema@huitema.net@[172.58.43.253]) (envelope-sender ) by xmail08.myhosting.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with ESMTPA for ; 19 Dec 2020 16:38:52 -0000 To: Eliot Lear , rfced-future@iab.org References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> From: Christian Huitema Message-ID: <441ca4b4-98d6-06d3-fab1-17455ff6d559@huitema.net> Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2020 08:31:40 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------CB709BD3A7118897F879901A" Content-Language: en-US X-Originating-IP: 66.113.196.15 X-Spampanel-Domain: xsmtpout.mail2web.com X-Spampanel-Username: 66.113.196.15/32 Authentication-Results: antispamcloud.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=66.113.196.15/32@xsmtpout.mail2web.com X-Spampanel-Outgoing-Class: unsure X-Spampanel-Outgoing-Evidence: Combined (0.15) X-Recommended-Action: accept X-Filter-ID: Pt3MvcO5N4iKaDQ5O6lkdGlMVN6RH8bjRMzItlySaT9WLQux0N3HQm8ltz8rnu+BPUtbdvnXkggZ 3YnVId/Y5jcf0yeVQAvfjHznO7+bT5yXEnUqtuiszqcStXlDoE9S53HEEk0VSrq03gtFxbC/KmmB TSdLtu+bJzVZsg7/68Qw3PeDdIQYWDew57oOUxERSxIRXVMlFuiz/acFNeeXt8QYiTpLCsrpI++d V3X+sU8j1DlWJF1V2LSM5XaFSczU7eibU04JcTWQKv3WukWvpJ4rco7Ydx82Knwi2DhxW+q88A2w zVszU7vvUXN2fiw/LSf7q7XsQU29jXGtXEc4yN1paiVoQiig279hArmEazQFKXtiuAJ3NtoLAk8I JKi6HHnknBCFB2XCjKE4atFSdBe4BPzpam1U3Cj9xZx6U4O3QM22Wm73+PngL70p9A+WFDVoKv7C h+bugCmBCoi4dPPF3GUV+KdBBqrnCX8j0Gi8Ksk+aedMfNWSnJswrtlNtZo3HPHi5Q+jjsF5dcBx ehWYzrkgsp4/Fysgb2cPV4IH0+lPwKr4i5mAANUcVraZYOaeuiH/yEdZH8S1+TgcJBOjh0vPxcQO jKKOrYIQYpwamUdylUIKhf3z2GAHxH7Iiihnln5nLwsYugixy853dgGI409Uexq5zP1TE60A1w7S 2EwDq82btQMF5kHJ91eYINa9keScZ6Xn0u45yYETx2i5w9VYXgB+Rjp7L4H7s4XRtFuayQSHKxuV s+RmqoRq3CRiRJK4GhOXBQPqhauyD5t/Eqm8Q1hN0KPqgdxRch+3h1ESmlc3/lS5x7qxkdlavbgS 7BbmoZhH6hHDB6fv/geVjVqgWgHuS+mO0xyYZg1RXxKF5tPxTxfD0dMN+t5Z0iIQGljJ8mXD7xpx 2sNXD/oPFZIShBSdpVJW5HbjQTCUIzbw71BPKv8cPtVshTSLr6YHJu91A3avrF49rf9JcoEpejCA XczArXyV+OFXiMtbLPp9n350Mbemie5JWWm/MpxAyl4q1x5O0+PBD/gPmWjXVA9S7TnWXDlmMpVd cwCFwrnT0GQK/7labXRdXAB+MS+4ayUpOtEhdxekWDmK9g== X-Report-Abuse-To: spam@quarantine11.antispamcloud.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Consensus check on Issue 13: Is decision making in the strategic body open to all? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2020 16:31:56 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------CB709BD3A7118897F879901A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 12/18/2020 1:52 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: > Yesterday the group agreed with the following text: > >> All strategic body meetings are open to the public, all discussions >> of issues take place on open mailing lists, and anyone is welcome >> to comment / discuss. > > Could you please indicate any concerns you have by the *8th of January*? > > Note: there are several closely related issues here: > > Issue 13: Is decision making in the strategy body is open to all? > In the GitHub issue, Eliot proposed:     All strategic body meetings are open to the public, all discussions of issues take place on open mailing lists, and anyone is welcome to comment / discuss. I agree with that. > Issue 15: Who makes final decisions on strategy? > As I mentioned in the chat room during the meeting yesterday (12/17/2020), I think a working group model works better if there is a review body on top, so the proposal would be: * strategic directions are discussed in a WG and documented in WG drafts, * once the WG chairs determine consensus, the draft is passed to the review body for approval, * (maybe) have a community wide last call at this stage, so the community is not surprised by WG decisions, * the review body may then either approve, or send the document back to the WG. There were suggestions during the meeting that the review body would be constituted of the stream editors, ex officio. I think that would be fine. -- Christian Huitema --------------CB709BD3A7118897F879901A Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


On 12/18/2020 1:52 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
Yesterday the group agreed with the following text:

All strategic body meetings are open to the public, all discussions of issues take place on open mailing lists, and anyone is welcome to comment / discuss.

Could you please indicate any concerns you have by the 8th of January?

Note: there are several closely related issues here:

In the GitHub issue, Eliot proposed:

    All strategic body meetings are open to the public, all discussions of issues take place on open mailing lists, and anyone is welcome to comment / discuss.

I agree with that.

As I mentioned in the chat room during the meeting yesterday (12/17/2020), I think a working group model works better if there is a review body on top, so the proposal would be:

  • strategic directions are discussed in a WG and documented in WG drafts,
  • once the WG chairs determine consensus, the draft is passed to the review body for approval,
  • (maybe) have a community wide last call at this stage, so the community is not surprised by WG decisions,
  • the review body may then either approve, or send the document back to the WG.

There were suggestions during the meeting that the review body would be constituted of the stream editors, ex officio. I think that would be fine.

-- Christian Huitema
--------------CB709BD3A7118897F879901A-- From nobody Sat Dec 19 12:08:07 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E54533A0ED3 for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 12:08:05 -0800 (PST) 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 4DaRPmDZfhMk for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 12:08:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03D0A3A0EDF for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 12:08:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A7B9300BB7 for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 15:08:01 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id UTV2GIPmWEtm for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 15:07:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (pool-141-156-161-153.washdc.fios.verizon.net [141.156.161.153]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7DBBD30066E for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 15:07:59 -0500 (EST) From: Russ Housley Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3658C570-601E-49B0-AAEF-EE1F68164754" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.17\)) Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2020 15:08:00 -0500 References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <441ca4b4-98d6-06d3-fab1-17455ff6d559@huitema.net> To: rfced-future@iab.org In-Reply-To: <441ca4b4-98d6-06d3-fab1-17455ff6d559@huitema.net> Message-Id: <73E5B817-A9A5-4879-90FA-E7E210B46256@vigilsec.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.17) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Consensus check on Issue 13: Is decision making in the strategic body open to all? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2020 20:08:06 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_3658C570-601E-49B0-AAEF-EE1F68164754 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >> Yesterday the group agreed with the following text: >>=20 >>> All strategic body meetings are open to the public, all discussions = of issues take place on open mailing lists, and anyone is welcome to = comment / discuss. >>=20 >> Could you please indicate any concerns you have by the 8th of = January? >>=20 >> Note: there are several closely related issues here: >>=20 >> Issue 13: Is decision making in the strategy body is open to all? = In the GitHub = issue, Eliot proposed: >=20 > All strategic body meetings are open to the public, all = discussions of issues take place on open mailing lists, and anyone is = welcome to comment / discuss. >=20 > I agree with that. >=20 >> Issue 15: Who makes final decisions on strategy? = As I mentioned = in the chat room during the meeting yesterday (12/17/2020), I think a = working group model works better if there is a review body on top, so = the proposal would be: >=20 > strategic directions are discussed in a WG and documented in WG = drafts, > once the WG chairs determine consensus, the draft is passed to the = review body for approval, > (maybe) have a community wide last call at this stage, so the = community is not surprised by WG decisions, > the review body may then either approve, or send the document back to = the WG. > There were suggestions during the meeting that the review body would = be constituted of the stream editors, ex officio. I think that would be = fine. >=20 >=20 I like the approval body being made up of the stream managers. They are = all directly (IETF Chair) or indirectly (chosen by the IAB) accountable = to NomCom. Russ --Apple-Mail=_3658C570-601E-49B0-AAEF-EE1F68164754 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

Yesterday the group agreed with the following text:

All strategic body meetings are open to the public, all discussions of issues take place on open mailing lists, and anyone is welcome to comment / discuss.

Could you please indicate any concerns you have by the 8th of January?

Note: there are several closely related issues here:

In the GitHub issue, Eliot proposed:

    All strategic body meetings are open to the public, all discussions of issues take place on open mailing lists, and anyone is welcome to comment / discuss.

I agree with that.

As I mentioned in the chat room during the meeting yesterday (12/17/2020), I think a working group model works better if there is a review body on top, so the proposal would be:

  • strategic directions are discussed in a WG and documented in WG drafts,
  • once the WG chairs determine consensus, the draft is passed to the review body for approval,
  • (maybe) have a community wide last call at this stage, so the community is not surprised by WG decisions,
  • the review body may then either approve, or send the document back to the WG.

There were suggestions during the meeting that the review body would be constituted of the stream editors, ex officio. I think that would be fine.


I like the approval body being made up of the stream managers.  They are all directly (IETF Chair) or indirectly (chosen by the IAB) accountable to NomCom.

Russ




--Apple-Mail=_3658C570-601E-49B0-AAEF-EE1F68164754-- From nobody Sat Dec 19 12:08:15 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DFDD3A0EDE for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 12:08:14 -0800 (PST) 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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-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 brOC0wgbj0Qw for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 12:08:12 -0800 (PST) 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 CB9E83A0ED3 for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 12:08:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CyxcX4H9Zz6G7Ts; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 12:08:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1608408492; bh=sjhgncO9SZ+gAUwV2aO+S4q8eug1vhezwpU2pCnHCWs=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=WHcrzqh8RIucWZWX9U9zjDb0uICFpsn7/b8MxYyWKHtD/G579Yaanr1kcM0UQbtXc ibMvu6Wdq+S1TJg7XlVz2z9rPza/6hMhzwBEs0yZdsVPbZEq/YX9djiip/kUNG3xIC BSbtf4XwDzt5hguYL+vm8dtDdmZgr1w5g5bQJhqw= X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (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 4CyxcX04BQz6G8p5; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 12:08:11 -0800 (PST) To: Christian Huitema , rfced-future@iab.org References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <441ca4b4-98d6-06d3-fab1-17455ff6d559@huitema.net> From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: <0726262c-18ea-ae3e-c6a5-ad127dfd36c6@joelhalpern.com> Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2020 15:08:11 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <441ca4b4-98d6-06d3-fab1-17455ff6d559@huitema.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] WG Document review body X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2020 20:08:14 -0000 Having a review body would likely help some of my concerns. (Not all, but that is a separate thread). Even if the RS{EA} does not ahve a vote on the review body, I think it would be good to include that person in the review process. Yours, Joel On 12/19/2020 11:31 AM, Christian Huitema wrote: > > On 12/18/2020 1:52 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: >> Yesterday the group agreed with the following text: >> >>> All strategic body meetings are open to the public, all discussions >>> of issues take place on open mailing lists, and anyone is welcome >>> to comment / discuss. >> >> Could you please indicate any concerns you have by the *8th of January*? >> >> Note: there are several closely related issues here: >> >> Issue 13: Is decision making in the strategy body is open to all? >> > > In the GitHub issue, Eliot proposed: > >     All strategic body meetings are open to the public, all discussions > of issues take place on open mailing lists, and anyone is welcome to > comment / discuss. > > I agree with that. > >> Issue 15: Who makes final decisions on strategy? >> > > As I mentioned in the chat room during the meeting yesterday > (12/17/2020), I think a working group model works better if there is a > review body on top, so the proposal would be: > > * strategic directions are discussed in a WG and documented in WG drafts, > * once the WG chairs determine consensus, the draft is passed to the > review body for approval, > * (maybe) have a community wide last call at this stage, so the > community is not surprised by WG decisions, > * the review body may then either approve, or send the document back > to the WG. > > There were suggestions during the meeting that the review body would be > constituted of the stream editors, ex officio. I think that would be fine. > > -- Christian Huitema > From nobody Sat Dec 19 14:16:49 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 325BB3A0C12 for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 14:16:48 -0800 (PST) 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-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 JuFJbZ9Kk-Ou for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 14:16:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pg1-x52a.google.com (mail-pg1-x52a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52a]) (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 718403A0C15 for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 14:16:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pg1-x52a.google.com with SMTP id c22so3662347pgg.13 for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 14:16:46 -0800 (PST) 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=CPG67gdFnZt1nKqwk8nhQV370cjMCnNtkEjcNj88P34=; b=YnpB9jSEDsyzk8l5XnBq2/02vb5C7GxQoyrXLPEfw+JrGHNi1bEbAuWUn+w6f3CgQT +AFR4lPh1wVRvhQO37mZqULU9PpaIUWS41ncE0nQ91Z/sFj6+lLNvyNIlIEX8fLn1Zg2 USujVDPtiHvMzMexGccicEfEHxEe8RCqHWroffOGxc5K5ESKwnG3JwIS8rXN8ra9NUk9 vNvtnqTz80h/UY6Xqw4kvgkh1DHyUz7GjYQLcXtR7hRpLYnkVcb4LWGr0THkYd2Mu5sh jq/+3OEj+FS6HigiRpC03/noDUxMkaAi0ipDpLQ0HJ7xU8nHwbxKEklXTYiiOvnNiBMy Kh0g== 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=CPG67gdFnZt1nKqwk8nhQV370cjMCnNtkEjcNj88P34=; b=QZ1z43S4LkXRg0pknVDMT9++4WrIGLNJ3gD4p9S3r27OvtCDByLbxbFkALXpum8rBA noVdTHd9srw+A2SO4K2v5qj/vYZjj9Aq7BCuYSBKbFwS2dC/ngO/aK/nDQGCRixeKaBe r55OLrIlkJ4fEDWNZh7QUqY7l/7+kr8Kp7I5987pC0KD3deWDYuHNN8RbolLdAVud0uO yRqndQGTaVcYtvjDLUSU9VpMUbWuj8vaHgQOgiAp4KczoBZquC4hkHZNcMvHWydwHXHl GDu69L7azTV6n/2K32WJ5Lifb0b2iiA4TeSJUbb/X9JjZYWWm6nkwSgx+lL9jk6iwkwY Lmyg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530pkzsRNU25XPlPsepWWhX6jI3odYkIKjeq+HXzZyd64y5BEbWU U4JCEDkL8OGwYVFfaiKgc6sFUcGQwAqFEw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxpkXETww/EQV9MxcdjbwKjOaVjfQuOcV52gHbzJnYTw8ZSyPXDaj5SzyOWVIc2apwPVQjKsg== X-Received: by 2002:a62:380a:0:b029:1a9:5aa1:6d0d with SMTP id f10-20020a62380a0000b02901a95aa16d0dmr9517264pfa.45.1608416205506; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 14:16:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.131.28]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id jx4sm11055178pjb.24.2020.12.19.14.16.42 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 19 Dec 2020 14:16:44 -0800 (PST) To: Eliot Lear , rfced-future@iab.org References: <99E11840-6AEB-46B5-A436-510B5FB7133E@cisco.com> From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland Message-ID: Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2020 11:16:40 +1300 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: <99E11840-6AEB-46B5-A436-510B5FB7133E@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 12: Consensus check on baseline text X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2020 22:16:48 -0000 I'm happy with this text. If you want a temporary term for the role, cons= ider "RFC Series Expert", which preserves the RSE acronym. Regards Brian Carpenter On 18-Dec-20 22:42, Eliot Lear wrote: > Dear all, >=20 > In the last interim, we agreed that the following text should be the st= arting point for text to describe the role of the RS[EA]. =C2=A0Could you= please state concerns about this text as a starting point no later than = 8 January 2020? =C2=A0You can also find it in GH=C2=A0here .=C2=A0 =C2= =A0Feel free to create PRs, but please discuss them on list. >=20 > Eliot >=20 >=20 > Role of the RFC Series Editor >=20 >=20 > >=20 >=20 > Draft! Please submit PRs, but discuss on list. >=20 > This person will be a senior professional with deep knowledge of techni= cal publishing. >=20 > The RSE will operate by providing expert advice to the RSAWG, and if re= quested, to the RPC, on any relevant matters. The value this individual p= rovides is an understanding of the process of technical publishing. They = expected to learn how the process is applied in the RFC series. They will= be asked to produce regular reviews of the process and identify problems= and opportunities for improvement. There are also opportunities to spont= aneously learn of these problems, likely the result of interactions with = day-to-day operations. The person may be requested to draft documents >=20 > For example, the RSE might be consulted about proposed changes to the s= tyle guide, RFC formatting in general, web presence, copyright matters, o= r archiving policy, or might of their own initiative suggest such changes= to the RSAWG. >=20 > The RSE is expected to attend all RSAWG meetings, and to have an ongoin= g working relationship with the RPC and tooling team. >=20 >=20 From nobody Sat Dec 19 14:19:07 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4279F3A0C18 for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 14:19:03 -0800 (PST) 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-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 9sZY-ME6RtDx for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 14:19:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pj1-x102b.google.com (mail-pj1-x102b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102b]) (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 1166E3A0C16 for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 14:19:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pj1-x102b.google.com with SMTP id b5so3518261pjk.2 for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 14:19:01 -0800 (PST) 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=tyi43yomr9Awn9ACO79IiCXr/s6zRQPjshdzIBeC+XQ=; b=VK/+cy2RqribBSb/JCC5ILK8IIvd2PDbGXzvfJfW0IwPVQtm8Cr/capduFY41DBZpA HhIjwJsqKvX8U+AfLO4mJr/dWcAlk5dVVpUo7aZ21pfkcuKGQaaYS7fjuIOhduZ/vkaZ jcNhapqQUuAIvbN+9RDAPJqHX8ZybMAXY1j99tdahPxKPLSGIJn4oruAIpr4cuaLnUdF UYThtYxSccJKq+i1snQoXSgtPvtr852rsA4bC6qLOZQ9USJbo7mXCrrmFi4rKXio2ss7 6/1OmT/RK+GqPjQMizAx++zueMalUR28pXE0vIt0Qh0vNnw3fHUjJNANqI1Mqo3NbIyJ zG/g== 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=tyi43yomr9Awn9ACO79IiCXr/s6zRQPjshdzIBeC+XQ=; b=S0rrBvV7I1azad46uIETJcHHl5neFXnY5qytaCYABwXHVCTLfvmGqhRJlNSaYqP1Tw QwLFiKLoLdaCw6gcxDEKJvodvBBFGMrUcCRtwsRKkOpBVoCl1IKKdMhS6EIKpzQ5/VOq rfF6yQoDraQcCFy8ilkEtiB+59mc7lhNvBaBT4WodCx87yxLTqcayZuIUKR9NMoSFL7F CBMK4NS0Vq7b0USUdKC1ftxIjzE4ngBfjiEvduUuowy7W9mEk2MfQHpW2qrpYexDW79T Ko8hNFlOwVrbxgj3fOyfn7+DaC5l7eO+dJJ6BEcKq8BmXVYY2jioBLvFAvXq8+h8wy/i wZDg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530RRHwLs5Dq4KIB44iKbk7kM/nYQ0/bpfki+v+H2WTwCVxwcSll elkyknRMYrOXUcdcZA6u943zkiVR+kKfKQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy4FDFiLhIDy3s9r0zODSFf0VJ+oHAeI7XYULnsuOQDHp4UmvZ0zyZt1JhouG6bINRKTjxY/g== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:d502:: with SMTP id t2mr10268433pju.131.1608416341103; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 14:19:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.131.28]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b18sm12398069pfi.173.2020.12.19.14.18.59 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 19 Dec 2020 14:19:00 -0800 (PST) To: Eliot Lear , rfced-future@iab.org References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: <674ddc6a-e091-8d5e-56fa-725693f79cd4@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2020 11:18:56 +1300 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: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Consensus check on Issue 13: Is decision making in the strategic body open to all? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2020 22:19:04 -0000 Strictly on issue 13, I agree with the wording on openness. Regards Brian On 18-Dec-20 22:52, Eliot Lear wrote: > Yesterday the group agreed with the following text: >=20 >> All strategic body meetings are=C2=A0open=C2=A0to=C2=A0the=C2=A0public= , all discussions of issues take place on=C2=A0open mailing=C2=A0lists,=C2= =A0and anyone is welcome to=C2=A0comment / discuss. >=20 > Could you please indicate any concerns you have by the=C2=A0*8th of Jan= uary*? >=20 > Note: there are several closely related issues here: >=20 > Issue 13:=C2=A0Is decision making in the strategy body is open to all? = > Issue 15:=C2=A0Who makes final decisions on strategy? >=20 > Let's refocus issue 13 on just participation and issue 15 on decision m= aking. =C2=A0 If people are satisfied with the above text, we=E2=80=99ll = move to issue 15 for the rest o the discussion about how decisions are ma= de. >=20 > Eliot >=20 From nobody Sat Dec 19 14:25:03 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF8573A08D9 for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 14:25:01 -0800 (PST) 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-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 GuEslajusj6J for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 14:25:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pl1-x633.google.com (mail-pl1-x633.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::633]) (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 2BE673A08D5 for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 14:25:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pl1-x633.google.com with SMTP id v3so3374487plz.13 for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 14:25:00 -0800 (PST) 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=/OJNyw1wcWMmrDTVmup561Sncv8g2/dakO5r73dQB5M=; b=LjhM7QFTCcE5mMpzhY9ukaCgjcmW9BbGDKM1qAcu3ZvEjyvBpEWcX9bAr5b6gDYzmx /B3X37C8Db6Oi84sHysffeHLN1nz8Dlq8sR6v4n6CZCm1uzM89V5hsSZSAV8sHFaKpLu BtaagiBbgeZBbEFogDXHYOK8i3ILA9QfHidCrjuXfvvJu/+gOZ99ZR9meZdOPEmV9Shu JA/52oudDRwQ1uTceDb33snBLUgDCOa/k/Q+pVRQ9qOmPF3UDzli5AR/ontZ/TaA/P6X ixvHXc+zMcr8bExk3WSm2iCB1H/k/NXMBmvMrfW4aG+dtMAyqrl1JYs0Jdt7uFkwrmuf lAAw== 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=/OJNyw1wcWMmrDTVmup561Sncv8g2/dakO5r73dQB5M=; b=INpTKO5R0jLuC8rRIhUHmGZ6KfXMK8kVVZHAyLA4NxxEmbx+i/iRbnni6/vAi7STrv gvifoGQSzrsO7wrP+/wOeH5cvWm89CkqKsero2uOmbxuLD3ZMPmd82ayTWGfoFufuO1k ZJPhk2A4DMIpOBZ1Wwrhe7GNjl3nz64gNmtGoOQ8bZUHw+//KyfyjwtUNuO5MlrUdv37 zk8e3QwTCYseNxke/yWGuNDCVrTpOE/+6MLfKFXSKMCjr/YQVYTuXlYWFml959qoBa4D d/KNtxtxEDfExTdtllJ6z5Xh1KOT9Z0fo/95jbrtSTOaeG0jFUIHzWxQFN4mQeqezG3V v2fg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532j2O3faL+Fythaq40YwpAGSorlQk7PSw2qjedT7Q5dQIg5Jh6r 1z7XsSTvMAx0jXeyDDtEchmykMvTeFNP1A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJytt1okpH1DZNlkdeHUyboZuSWJ2IXd0uWt/0D6J0hpV0ADgs/VyKySI/TZsbvDkK+9RNFuwQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:a5c4:b029:dc:240a:8806 with SMTP id t4-20020a170902a5c4b02900dc240a8806mr10443983plq.40.1608416699267; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 14:24:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.131.28]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t18sm12611321pfl.138.2020.12.19.14.24.56 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 19 Dec 2020 14:24:58 -0800 (PST) To: "Joel M. Halpern" , Christian Huitema , rfced-future@iab.org References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <441ca4b4-98d6-06d3-fab1-17455ff6d559@huitema.net> <0726262c-18ea-ae3e-c6a5-ad127dfd36c6@joelhalpern.com> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: <1f0e9c35-8aac-7b5e-dbd1-e328054e45c7@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2020 11:24:54 +1300 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: <0726262c-18ea-ae3e-c6a5-ad127dfd36c6@joelhalpern.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] WG Document review body X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2020 22:25:02 -0000 On 20-Dec-20 09:08, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > Having a review body would likely help some of my concerns. (Not all, = > but that is a separate thread). > Even if the RS{EA} does not ahve a vote on the review body, I think it = > would be good to include that person in the review process. Yes, it would be strange not to include the Expert, but there is a risk of conflict of interest. Just as IESG members are expected to abstain on their own drafts, I'd expect the Expert to do so too. I'd say that if we go in this direction, we'll probably end up creating a couple of NomCom-appointed slots too, or asking ISOC to nominate a member. Just having the four stream managers seems a bit light. Regards Brian >=20 > Yours, > Joel >=20 > On 12/19/2020 11:31 AM, Christian Huitema wrote: >> >> On 12/18/2020 1:52 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: >>> Yesterday the group agreed with the following text: >>> >>>> All strategic body meetings are=C2=A0open=C2=A0to=C2=A0the=C2=A0publ= ic, all discussions=20 >>>> of issues take place on=C2=A0open mailing=C2=A0lists,=C2=A0and anyon= e is welcome=20 >>>> to=C2=A0comment / discuss. >>> >>> Could you please indicate any concerns you have by the *8th of Januar= y*? >>> >>> Note: there are several closely related issues here: >>> >>> Issue 13: Is decision making in the strategy body is open to all?=20 >>> >> >> In the GitHub issue, Eliot proposed: >> >> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 All strategic body meetings are open to the public= , all discussions=20 >> of issues take place on open mailing lists, and anyone is welcome to=20 >> comment / discuss. >> >> I agree with that. >> >>> Issue 15: Who makes final decisions on strategy?=20 >>> >> >> As I mentioned in the chat room during the meeting yesterday=20 >> (12/17/2020), I think a working group model works better if there is a= =20 >> review body on top, so the proposal would be: >> >> * strategic directions are discussed in a WG and documented in WG dr= afts, >> * once the WG chairs determine consensus, the draft is passed to the= >> review body for approval, >> * (maybe) have a community wide last call at this stage, so the >> community is not surprised by WG decisions, >> * the review body may then either approve, or send the document back= >> to the WG. >> >> There were suggestions during the meeting that the review body would b= e=20 >> constituted of the stream editors, ex officio. I think that would be f= ine. >> >> -- Christian Huitema >> >=20 From nobody Mon Dec 21 09:21:39 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@iab.org Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA9BB3A1259; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 09:21:37 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: IAB Executive Administrative Manager To: "IETF-Announce" Cc: rfced-future@iab.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.24.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <160857129770.12727.10589800960548262929@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2020 09:21:37 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] RFC Editor Future Development (rfcefdp) PROGRAM Virtual Meeting: 2021-01-12 X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2020 17:21:38 -0000 The RFC Editor Future Development (rfcefdp) Program will hold a virtual interim meeting on 2021-01-12 from 20:00 to 22:00 Europe/London (20:00 to 22:00 UTC). Agenda: Provisional: Continue on Issue 15 - Who makes final decisions on strategy? Possibly Issue 14 - Who chairs the decision making body? Possibly Issue 16 - Who handles oversight/appeals/ Information about remote participation: https://cisco.webex.com/cisco/j.php?MTID=m5160af4acf1441fa51991e5d1aab7f31 From nobody Mon Dec 21 19:59:10 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ED4A3A0990 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 19:59:08 -0800 (PST) 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_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mnot.net header.b=I3S4Ujiy; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=VoL06wyQ 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 IZYBjNNC8pdB for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 19:59:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADC513A0880 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 19:59:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E66D15C0167; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 22:59:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 21 Dec 2020 22:59:04 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnot.net; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm1; bh=I LTE9GghvkY4eWCzl0ZmNC+C8R6SDGgWCOWrK0/41Xo=; b=I3S4UjiyDN6lXWJaJ hZKqrYhe3w55Orr8gQn8QKyuyCuaGVuscPdoufgyjMyHr+tcL9QVcnIx2rgV2qmZ hA855S0aa8KPLRCwRP92f+lq3M0Ydoe8n3LFWtB1W57tKpIv7DF4BwAyg3DnLvLm xEc/X3p0fK4lGgCZjlQR2NBHl83g2/uK0779loEGsKv9i9pmm0vnrW6pHJpmUJEC 3NoqymCveMY3y7uuoCbTQgCYKt2Ug6UvrmfMl9w90QnXNZna0GQr07ysnobF7gpm 3i6bayc28UDyJUBhr2Mqk0iabTKoKNfsuQhmonccjGqnkm/XC4V6hYqyDtHyFEd0 kjijg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=ILTE9GghvkY4eWCzl0ZmNC+C8R6SDGgWCOWrK0/41 Xo=; b=VoL06wyQDpK4b7tqGOxFDazm6I6lqA9V5Qj8Bicqsvw5hwkcB4/YSQPfq MXAIheUTBogTBue4vvgbdo+b1hC6WpZHAItoa3yF4ODDrXzFwLHlHevrujjGM601 aySoDZgTSII7sALIlxLwQlQQqxWytIKJFQzJGTjoI7lT0TyDKOIrlrY5zKgHJC+b JLejSv+01Fs9OeThhoq5RR0nAiMQCo0x0PhipW5uDdlgP23/Q0GF6iTkLix0ozqn hF8tmxNDmWm0C15xxAR8c51g4yDsNph+/4kE+7GHmfR3u5ZnsNLGjiYwa1bXkRXf m5ouVSMxJf0hWkR51M+bPUdFcsWLw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrvddtfedgieejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurheptggguffhjgffgffkfhfvofesthhqmhdthhdtvdenucfhrhhomhepofgrrhhk ucfpohhtthhinhhghhgrmhcuoehmnhhothesmhhnohhtrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpeeutdekhfdtgffgjeejgeekveehfefhgfeugfehfefggeekhfeitdegudevudef ieenucffohhmrghinhepihgrsgdrohhrghdpmhhnohhtrdhnvghtnecukfhppeduudelrd dujedrudehkedrvdehudenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedunecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgr ihhlfhhrohhmpehmnhhothesmhhnohhtrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: from [192.168.7.30] (119-17-158-251.77119e.mel.static.aussiebb.net [119.17.158.251]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 1C0BF1080063; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 22:59:01 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.20.0.2.21\)) From: Mark Nottingham In-Reply-To: <99E11840-6AEB-46B5-A436-510B5FB7133E@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 14:59:00 +1100 Cc: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2416DA61-9442-4124-A66F-F66E23FE053D@mnot.net> References: <99E11840-6AEB-46B5-A436-510B5FB7133E@cisco.com> To: Eliot Lear X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.20.0.2.21) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 12: Consensus check on baseline text X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 03:59:08 -0000 I like RFC Series Expert! Comment below. > On 18 Dec 2020, at 8:42 pm, Eliot Lear = wrote: >=20 > Dear all, >=20 > In the last interim, we agreed that the following text should be the = starting point for text to describe the role of the RS[EA]. Could you = please state concerns about this text as a starting point no later than = 8 January 2020? You can also find it in GH here. Feel free to create = PRs, but please discuss them on list. >=20 > Eliot > Role of the RFC Series Editor >=20 >=20 > Draft! Please submit PRs, but discuss on list. >=20 > This person will be a senior professional with deep knowledge of = technical publishing. I'm not sure what 'senior' means in this context - in respect to whom = are they 'senior'? 'experienced' might be more appropriate.=20 > The RSE will operate by providing expert advice to the RSAWG, and if = requested, to the RPC, on any relevant matters. The value this = individual provides is an understanding of the process of technical = publishing. They expected to learn how the process is applied in the RFC = series. They will be asked to produce regular reviews of the process and = identify problems and opportunities for improvement. There are also = opportunities to spontaneously learn of these problems, likely the = result of interactions with day-to-day operations. The person may be = requested to draft documents >=20 > For example, the RSE might be consulted about proposed changes to the = style guide, RFC formatting in general, web presence, copyright matters, = or archiving policy, or might of their own initiative suggest such = changes to the RSAWG. >=20 > The RSE is expected to attend all RSAWG meetings, and to have an = ongoing working relationship with the RPC and tooling team. >=20 > --=20 > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ From nobody Mon Dec 21 20:02:54 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36A823A098D for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 20:02:53 -0800 (PST) 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_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mnot.net header.b=hR2YJ5xu; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=hyUHzKsN 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 KOy7rVP1fPVQ for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 20:02:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7FA33A0990 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 20:02:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBF2B5C012C; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 23:02:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 21 Dec 2020 23:02:50 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnot.net; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm1; bh=n e8Xvf3dRvw10kXjMqKWQ+kuxiW5vgAIx/4Xw4TKMV0=; b=hR2YJ5xuU0ZXwb3vN 2fEtPHTdHt1xNjMbiE3ATH/V3WFbJRLxFCvJkMwkmVg90j7g/otevwNQY6Ypg4MF dHCJIfNGcY13BdczD60OXnGZk3+8OWkAwouAaavW1gnnarSTaQLZdpwXNe07HOfQ VauxX5R7Vuj3Lpfs+IQ9UkGFp9B+tyLWDkzSwFDNpJSST5qbYeEZeMb8SRwj2XHy MH04UFZ8tK/ZogzmeJLBMDXhQpTa/ncJxcm40eKSlOo2CMgXaNBaEluQfb/S9GOw bakNe2hMcDhv8aKqoGMiaC5nJSRJN8ZmWDjX7sYZKuTPFQMLdWtPOeDOti2EQjGC Ss2mw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=ne8Xvf3dRvw10kXjMqKWQ+kuxiW5vgAIx/4Xw4TKM V0=; b=hyUHzKsNZON99y8SN098P3+m8xADsNxOZRqyEjDBGFGJt5b/kHtbUL+kT drD9FvKluOLrrDjQEnn21UGK91ij821HquUfhFWpPV1njPlVi/s++7jYZm583vbo FEhiUsI0spCNUyNHqbPxWFoNgrZVsp3orQuI1oG4tedHDDJB+Oe/b0zHynEQhRmK II6pXsJICx4LfIuXxjcRXWf8/jRJhYXHje3yUTD/L9osppzZMwMDjnSnpOZ/99RW tTPFLEeXUIJHfOiMLLH2TL+MJV6mJRDhNTERExfl6HZ3mnDnTaMiPcCwD2tWfyw+ T0IhKct4Oiw9DGVtrLPUTKDKst/SA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrvddtfedgieekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurheptggguffhjgffgffkfhfvofesthhqmhdthhdtjeenucfhrhhomhepofgrrhhk ucfpohhtthhinhhghhgrmhcuoehmnhhothesmhhnohhtrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpeetgefhveejfedvffejueeiuedvvedvvddujeeftdfhhfevhfdvhffgudeileff veenucffohhmrghinhepihgrsgdrohhrghdpmhhnohhtrdhnvghtnecukfhppeduudelrd dujedrudehkedrvdehudenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgr ihhlfhhrohhmpehmnhhothesmhhnohhtrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: from [192.168.7.30] (119-17-158-251.77119e.mel.static.aussiebb.net [119.17.158.251]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 760FF1080057; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 23:02:48 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.20.0.2.21\)) From: Mark Nottingham In-Reply-To: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 15:02:46 +1100 Cc: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> To: Eliot Lear X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.20.0.2.21) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Consensus check on Issue 13: Is decision making in the strategic body open to all? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 04:02:53 -0000 > On 18 Dec 2020, at 8:52 pm, Eliot Lear = wrote: >=20 > Yesterday the group agreed with the following text: >=20 >> All strategic body meetings are open to the public 'to the public' is a bit odd, considering how the IETF works; I think = 'open' is adequate. The important part is how (and where) decisions are = made, of course. >> all discussions of issues take place on open mailing lists That precludes using an issue manager. I'd prefer merely that = discussions are always open, leaving the technology out. >> and anyone is welcome to comment / discuss. ... and raise an issue? >=20 > Could you please indicate any concerns you have by the 8th of January? >=20 > Note: there are several closely related issues here: >=20 > Issue 13: Is decision making in the strategy body is open to all? > Issue 15: Who makes final decisions on strategy? >=20 > Let's refocus issue 13 on just participation and issue 15 on decision = making. If people are satisfied with the above text, we=E2=80=99ll = move to issue 15 for the rest o the discussion about how decisions are = made. >=20 > Eliot > --=20 > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ From nobody Mon Dec 21 20:43:47 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 251B23A09F6 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 20:43:45 -0800 (PST) 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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 Xf0S-d37LPTC for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 20:43:43 -0800 (PST) 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 E75673A09E8 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 20:43:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D0NyQ5DQzz6GMYS; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 20:43:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1608612222; bh=KOL3yQJgE0zoPSpSBHvjMmUjCxyO1Bs82OaNyyih1AM=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=mDvrl+XRsdkbvcJIJyqi7uM11Rygjix/kUz92tHGqddd5NABhzEnHhalGm+oIik3o DZLtEJzf66rfYmTH45MOeQxyICUL+11XegjcUHRbvwW4uHx7AU/CZ6JNZTScGSfjI8 KcfY300FuCGgOkIotscTNkdd+jLkI4PS80QoTnG8= X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (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 4D0NyQ01jbz6GQgc; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 20:43:41 -0800 (PST) To: Mark Nottingham , Eliot Lear Cc: rfced-future@iab.org References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: <52205b0b-979e-e278-9511-e5853f9c4e9c@joelhalpern.com> Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2020 23:43:41 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 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: [Rfced-future] Consensus check on Issue 13: Is decision making in the strategic body open to all? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 04:43:45 -0000 On one item in Mark's note... (I could not figure out how to change the subject line to retain enough commonality and say "issue tracking".) I would strongly prefer that for this proposed body, all discussions take place on the email list. That does not preclude "using an issue manager" to manage / track / record issues. It does preclude using the issue manager for discussion of issues. Yours, Joel On 12/21/2020 11:02 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > >> On 18 Dec 2020, at 8:52 pm, Eliot Lear wrote: >> >> Yesterday the group agreed with the following text: >> >>> All strategic body meetings are open to the public > > 'to the public' is a bit odd, considering how the IETF works; I think 'open' is adequate. The important part is how (and where) decisions are made, of course. > >>> all discussions of issues take place on open mailing lists > > That precludes using an issue manager. I'd prefer merely that discussions are always open, leaving the technology out. > > >>> and anyone is welcome to comment / discuss. > > ... and raise an issue? > >> >> Could you please indicate any concerns you have by the 8th of January? >> >> Note: there are several closely related issues here: >> >> Issue 13: Is decision making in the strategy body is open to all? >> Issue 15: Who makes final decisions on strategy? >> >> Let's refocus issue 13 on just participation and issue 15 on decision making. If people are satisfied with the above text, we’ll move to issue 15 for the rest o the discussion about how decisions are made. >> >> Eliot >> -- >> Rfced-future mailing list >> Rfced-future@iab.org >> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ > From nobody Mon Dec 21 20:47:53 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 557153A09F6 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 20:47:52 -0800 (PST) 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_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mnot.net header.b=RqjBISAJ; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=QcbsUTDQ 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 CfYrCWZngLe3 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 20:47:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A81753A09FA for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 20:47:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF7985C01B7; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 23:47:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 21 Dec 2020 23:47:49 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnot.net; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm1; bh=S FsUtBjFK8IuUnW0lducKNvwsKp3+YRS/9YhrTAuoDw=; b=RqjBISAJh9kyHBEE6 O4pTXMDd9k8A5aZVrkthQaayvSSEb4tBMvFmD2vT5Dhmgn4fOwNqH2NkhwqNRh36 sYn+xJQQ0hV61+Fgu8HoAPC7Augza41dexjmW+iMhCwReG2LYT2MFF0JWM7LAtKn 3Rn7CKzfj1bXbn0rzng02wszZYYRUgdlSANFq/H9hcP0OZ5VyhSIwecGd72a9Lse 311CzgT07lhmd3qMI8MzvUj1o2wWfy2oXMHM3BIYd+xo4FkzLtpU0M9n2ZFTXibV KqYLK0kBZaMIH0rYHtSfWPwFdc6m1d3fOFwo8JEAQP/D7BZDS+HmcAQ9w083OGDA pQ2dg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=SFsUtBjFK8IuUnW0lducKNvwsKp3+YRS/9YhrTAuo Dw=; b=QcbsUTDQ79Ilzwa2YNsdFFucWwABJR0Jn4LaIavQaSqC8FZh9lc0aREV8 KE08D4dQEZWBpbftQHxyBGTwNQa++9P1KU9KPe8PnRN8VTdO3qLD6P2MzIj68O7a buAEFE+ZMnrGnHhyYqILPuMdIvQMsb7+dqEBioPYP0i8qwUX2De264qfP7kUFFw/ w8/oqJPc+6x+Z2J4hvf6DgAMtatz2F50l27KZKmBTtzDq+TiySp9H4cPRfe0qNvJ NT51xe5Ok8GhC26g4N4CbfHlg3w9mNr6qBPYUupROMpUyxA+dPEQQMbkl5HfFvOI NLvs24Y9NZTEhUJZvt6yJR+qDQS7w== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrvddtfedgjeejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurheptggguffhjgffgffkfhfvofesthhqmhdthhdtvdenucfhrhhomhepofgrrhhk ucfpohhtthhinhhghhgrmhcuoehmnhhothesmhhnohhtrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpeevffffhfduteevvefhueffieegtdeutdehffeltefffedttdeggeejheeiueet teenucffohhmrghinhepmhhnohhtrdhnvghtnecukfhppeduudelrddujedrudehkedrvd ehudenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehm nhhothesmhhnohhtrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: from [192.168.7.30] (119-17-158-251.77119e.mel.static.aussiebb.net [119.17.158.251]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 0092C24005E; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 23:47:47 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.20.0.2.21\)) From: Mark Nottingham In-Reply-To: <52205b0b-979e-e278-9511-e5853f9c4e9c@joelhalpern.com> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 15:47:44 +1100 Cc: Eliot Lear , rfced-future@iab.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <52205b0b-979e-e278-9511-e5853f9c4e9c@joelhalpern.com> To: "Joel M. Halpern" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.20.0.2.21) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Consensus check on Issue 13: Is decision making in the strategic body open to all? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 04:47:52 -0000 On 22 Dec 2020, at 3:43 pm, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >=20 > I would strongly prefer that for this proposed body, all discussions = take place on the email list. >=20 > That does not preclude "using an issue manager" to manage / track / = record issues. It does preclude using the issue manager for discussion = of issues. I don't think we should be specifying how the group operates at this = level in what is effectively its charter -- we let WGs decide how they = operate (within the bounds of what our process requires), this should be = no different. I.e., let's have that conversation in that body, not here. If it decides = upon such a constraint, so be it. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ From nobody Tue Dec 22 07:22:35 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C2CC3A1108 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 07:22:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d_X16WKjB8sZ for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 07:22:27 -0800 (PST) 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 4AAC33A118B for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 07:22:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf1-x12e.google.com with SMTP id a12so32832631lfl.6 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 07:22:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3InH9fNx1DM0WQ1IMKAxQyYzQCYaRJkNqBdqrDF7VxI=; b=c3fpVQJhqyl9YybOwj/YdLdif72pK1QWBxE+9UlQh3/RlNxqVT95SzYhdpz+xfK9e/ yNZQxkVTbcCwR6fS77BhfX3QPYrCwv9IZ7noXMzYMIrGd0EijQuzYNLb7PJgUQTeovuS GMMkrHyU/YXTkPeWwvzbxOQ13g7c2uDZLQsUgpAHGsAQZz2bj9CRzdWwyMHEgDt0sLYN AUxuKhg0+KK1U19xrNtoh46DA2/KzUmYpXW8qpK2yiGZqDg4u9v3ZpLrW2g6UZdLaBIW hwqEN5KRpIXKX6V7FGqDs42cm1iR3r8/AtUuHwT9hV+JIpHU3gZDEmOmKqRRtADTlWQl vHQQ== 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=3InH9fNx1DM0WQ1IMKAxQyYzQCYaRJkNqBdqrDF7VxI=; b=Z8yc2uwCan7H/WiJfithPsDpxKZgi1atUQyel86+QgBovdqjCR1MyrCAr4rrKIatpV xnm1+sSwJ0CUJ2ROF8ZsuF17wUg44EZBg7MyiSUVUjDzbzNjtUiQNlCHCT7veaRcaALI lKgsHoWP8QgovHY4igODNyS6MmlT5QXjXcyZ6A/djE+kua4vWJwsE39MHeEugNWNFtwA PMHO0vsUHOINh19pjKxLd9U1UqVMS47l224oR69QnRMioOS8fTcZqjdzLCAYpc85BTpG JAR76jUniVV56Edkprp2ThQgUaIcEv7WXeJVGpjfFITaESQ/Nwmn1uo1OV7SR+eOWf7a i15Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532ckF+nTJxiRoCdtePf7TF1QixAz9f4fchbWoqpt/NnFCcshNmF fpu4C8gEs8vXkDqMC8SjzVlvBDJemFJjKMiBfFZ89A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyA5BPOg6IlDnVLQJ0+GJ+IqavBVbnxl9pvRDgKO0+2/FDHwA+FbBpkB6f69wf76FrNIHSES9U+FLE2jaNgZcg= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:44ba:: with SMTP id c26mr8864392lfm.132.1608650539309; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 07:22:19 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <52205b0b-979e-e278-9511-e5853f9c4e9c@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: From: Eric Rescorla Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 07:21:43 -0800 Message-ID: To: Mark Nottingham Cc: "Joel M. Halpern" , rfced-future@iab.org, Eliot Lear Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f6b1a105b70f2347" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Consensus check on Issue 13: Is decision making in the strategic body open to all? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 15:22:34 -0000 --000000000000f6b1a105b70f2347 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" I concur with Mark. I can't see any reason why this body should be different from other WGs in this respect. -Ekr P.S. This is kind of in the weeds, but to the extent to which the intent of this body is to reach the broader community of consumers of RFCs, I think there's a reasonable argument that some sort of Web site (whether GitHub, an issue tracker, or a site like discourse) is more accessible than a mailing list, in that one can easily engage on just the issues one cares about. On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 8:47 PM Mark Nottingham wrote: > On 22 Dec 2020, at 3:43 pm, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > > > > I would strongly prefer that for this proposed body, all discussions > take place on the email list. > > > > That does not preclude "using an issue manager" to manage / track / > record issues. It does preclude using the issue manager for discussion of > issues. > > I don't think we should be specifying how the group operates at this level > in what is effectively its charter -- we let WGs decide how they operate > (within the bounds of what our process requires), this should be no > different. > > I.e., let's have that conversation in that body, not here. If it decides > upon such a constraint, so be it. > > Cheers, > > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ > > -- > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future > --000000000000f6b1a105b70f2347 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I concur with Mark. I can't see any reason why th= is body should be different from other WGs in this respect.

<= /div>
-Ekr

P.S. This is kind of in the weeds, = but to the extent to which the intent of this body is to reach the broader = community of consumers of RFCs, I think there's a reasonable argument t= hat some sort of Web site (whether GitHub, an issue tracker, or a site like= discourse) is more accessible than a mailing list, in that one can easily = engage on just the issues one cares about.

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at= 8:47 PM Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
On 22 Dec 2020, at 3:43 pm, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com&g= t; wrote:
>
> I would strongly prefer that for this proposed body, all discussions t= ake place on the email list.
>
> That does not preclude "using an issue manager" to manage / = track / record issues.=C2=A0 It does preclude using the issue manager for d= iscussion of issues.

I don't think we should be specifying how the group operates at this le= vel in what is effectively its charter -- we let WGs decide how they operat= e (within the bounds of what our process requires), this should be no diffe= rent.

I.e., let's have that conversation in that body, not here. If it decide= s upon such a constraint, so be it.

Cheers,


--
Mark Nottingham=C2=A0 =C2=A0https://www.mnot.net/

--
Rfced-future mailing list
Rfced-future@iab.= org
https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
--000000000000f6b1a105b70f2347-- From nobody Tue Dec 22 09:00:36 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A76E03A1187 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 09:00:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.597 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.597 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=I5ekTDXU; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=H1oIIw0M 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 tmo3mv4-N_aV for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 09:00:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52BD03A1183 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 09:00:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3277; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1608656433; x=1609866033; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=FMqzLrGD01qNMn1WHFlmDqvf+olr/Ieny34HHnIpVJs=; b=I5ekTDXUQv4QZTLAtGlmuzHO+igNUwVOX5HkqAxt1rnY5J3fiRme373a VBcVrdcymuexZ1v/c6r4jBlAjJqPIeEW/omx6Xrw9P9rRBnkbk3M5g5a8 ARIYOfy67nrIGRuEeTjjdo588tCMJUNaKrgXHWJF8F/da/7+8xtsW3ecI E=; IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AY5Ix5hJPuuIz0BM9R9mcpTVXNCE6p7X5OBIU4Z?= =?us-ascii?q?M7irVIN76u5InmIFeGvK8/iVnOQcPd5u4Xw+bVsqW1X2sG7N7BtX0Za5VDWl?= =?us-ascii?q?cDjtlehA0vBsOJSCiZZP7nZiA3BoJOAVli+XzoNE5SBID4akGB6nG35CQZTx?= =?us-ascii?q?P4Mwc9L+/pG4nU2sKw0e36+5DabwhSwjSnZrYnJxStpgKXvc4T0oY=3D?= X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BwAQAnJeJf/5BdJa1iHAEBAQEBAQc?= =?us-ascii?q?BARIBAQQEAQGBfgQBAQsBgVFRB4FRLy6EP4NIA401lEKEcoFCgREDVAsBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?NAQEtAgQBAYRKAheBWwIlNwYOAgMBAQsBAQUBAQECAQYEcYVhDIV0AgQSER0?= =?us-ascii?q?BASwLAQ8CAQgEAQkfDgcCAgIwJQIEDieDBIF/VwMuAaUVAoE8iGl2gTKDBAE?= =?us-ascii?q?BBoUNGIIQCYE4AYJ0g3yGOCYbgUE/gTgMEIJWPoN3CT1Aglk0giyCSoFVAm6?= =?us-ascii?q?UQIcsnWsKgnSbUgMfokexTINuAgQCBAUCDgEBBoFsJIFXcBVlAYI+PhIXAg2?= =?us-ascii?q?OITeDOopYdDcCBgEJAQEDCXyKMQEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.78,439,1599523200"; d="scan'208,217";a="818324894" Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 22 Dec 2020 17:00:32 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (xch-aln-005.cisco.com [173.36.7.15]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 0BMH0KjI017899 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 22 Dec 2020 17:00:28 GMT Received: from xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) by XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (173.36.7.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 11:00:04 -0600 Received: from xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) by xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 11:00:03 -0600 Received: from NAM10-BN7-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 12:00:03 -0500 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=FCMCSxibZNK1QwxSyDBVU2H8+fH/lRAyXseyktnBZZGtHL1ny2yXSdGZZRVcfcxgIU4HqNGc+GA5hDNeq2R3tRvGLhcqLoHoJpxFI+AkePcTNvC/lPlnuJFVp4wiAwugv8l1xOqOkgXp2xdHszqhw1KCsDW6uPUOJZPSYKk4UNgAUt+Tycwz6JsbmBTtP9U8/C6oOncCloNe5BcM2BlFb95YEPU6byrxXm57AbzVM0Mpy4ereqVfh/5Ma2R2f0t+gV+Qb+WGE9uv9zGDn7uPK/MjevvCW6ssEKgocy8ZlYMhGZ7m+CSOjz/CL3nT3owahiUgHZXdDv1jIoJ+HGJTSg== 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=FMqzLrGD01qNMn1WHFlmDqvf+olr/Ieny34HHnIpVJs=; b=SXkjSlW/Z0aV//ZtYzNTQh3KwTF7BawadS6RXjUzlM/vxOdAU9jkKVxvyjsPJXRXQoXhsWaWlIvoU+4eC9QJvPA6w+UnABdhTP5D50ef77/bpIFuj1YdUbIKgQZl1zmgCL8zqzefABs38Hdc4k0Kavl09H12Prek4IbQqZoqZtRINOCrunY8wR9h8qPczPzaOoCP01L48QgW6qXHJFw6tXgh1bj0TMzuwKovdIaH4JsoNa9Ecm3KFdG8kAqmPo9jzuBZOhMvIvA/VaQrhzZyI1JG1m0b5og9wEG7poTbqydxfbhayYONwBJPBB2sjQC4BcM8OeMIlTbCV1f7bRsaog== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=FMqzLrGD01qNMn1WHFlmDqvf+olr/Ieny34HHnIpVJs=; b=H1oIIw0MjFls1e4JKdj46KdCAqw37NACsikeKgyRUbZols1tNZTKYQ7IUtsjbTZIG2Bwtyz/Q9LpSPboZ6S5x3SN3vOFM9EC0jkm6Qc5yc8A7+LXREh+ILgHeBB4XFwUjQQizjofYdezAKiLC3/QwqTindJfSgjqiVFe/LzxifQ= Received: from BY5PR11MB4211.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a03:1ba::10) by SJ0PR11MB5021.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a03:2dc::17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3676.31; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 17:00:01 +0000 Received: from BY5PR11MB4211.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::748f:3c01:aeb2:bd71]) by BY5PR11MB4211.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::748f:3c01:aeb2:bd71%3]) with mapi id 15.20.3676.033; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 17:00:01 +0000 From: "Eliot Lear (elear)" To: Mark Nottingham CC: "Joel M. Halpern" , Eliot Lear , "rfced-future@iab.org" Thread-Topic: [Rfced-future] Consensus check on Issue 13: Is decision making in the strategic body open to all? Thread-Index: AQHW1SOC70ziIm+aTk2wHG0wQcJn3aoChFUAgAALboCAAAEiAIAAzBaA Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 17:00:01 +0000 Message-ID: <0FC1D91B-ADBD-43E0-9437-2DE9B85B4EC4@cisco.com> References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <52205b0b-979e-e278-9511-e5853f9c4e9c@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) authentication-results: mnot.net; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;mnot.net; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com; x-originating-ip: [2a02:aa15:4101:2a80:5166:d37b:8f26:e163] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 5d9cdf7d-c90d-42aa-7233-08d8a69b05b9 x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: SJ0PR11MB5021: x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:7219; x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: bwn90AwODlJdI4s0ZRfeils21ABO+cacCzanYMm0Uf43WlpkCneWjZAgFBgsIYiVL7zs6KySLBlpRiAD4TdQg5J4ZXNgAdcJ6lAy4ARndaHKYuvm7RPtX1CqoanR9cTlD3x7BQDsKxaNOPVmu3TyunnMhXgLg0tiraC+KzAKpTSgjl/9M6ChovzTwXsEKA2xx9YzJhfjPjm2mdh8Mavbc952YBFLHX7QuraEAfqjMZohGktrKkch7VhYnlAQTyNyTul6OR/Ek2Dh8KeTrj2WpcVvkX03mcrYHHrmtsiiGJQDh/OiYdeizIRuW/5RkcXHVoMklPVySqDd3ALYG0vJTGxvC9BcHiEB5DaB7xdiqe3C+97uYDZbaWDPy3EayJSjcHjqU28unmnxaeo0sgxpQ+lfOlTxNgVzpjkiBT4eXssABKcb3TCzBiL85qNmw7oV x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:BY5PR11MB4211.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(346002)(39860400002)(136003)(366004)(396003)(376002)(4326008)(66476007)(71200400001)(2906002)(478600001)(36756003)(6916009)(8936002)(6486002)(83380400001)(5660300002)(33656002)(66446008)(76116006)(86362001)(54906003)(91956017)(6512007)(8676002)(4744005)(66556008)(186003)(64756008)(2616005)(6506007)(316002)(66946007)(45980500001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: =?utf-8?B?MXIrelo4UGk3VUdlcmNRUUwxY21YR1pvWWE3bjJVTTNIRWFQelZSQ1gxU2or?= =?utf-8?B?YU9zQldESzljMmlFRklpaDZqRnBOU05RMU5kWWI2VEVVM01oWlJTdWc3cG5X?= =?utf-8?B?MUY4SERzS2t1dWJybUNWVC9iRncvaWhHZFBQT0JmdjR1ZGJxOU90eEU0Z0xo?= =?utf-8?B?ZHJCSjVjMGsxbHd0YVpiNWd5MVhMM1pEZmE2Q0pVeGErVW91dHpOOVg1VlFt?= =?utf-8?B?Q05kZlV0MkxjSG5XMnNLbk5OQVBzUEpvZVhxcys3Tld6emlTR3BqOVQwc1FY?= =?utf-8?B?eXdRTWdqRWYxYUx6U0JQUmpxVlFXOU95Mms5Y1RHVHJIdStoRGhNUnlzQkRI?= =?utf-8?B?dmp4VzlKK0c5YXdXb1BBRi9aT3pMajJNeU53WGYxUkt1QjBJcmRDZkhPTXdX?= =?utf-8?B?MEdCTStRclB6UEIrWDh6aTBxemVjck5ySFUzaGlKV2FGSlJJdTZLSFV1SVRp?= =?utf-8?B?TzNhNHdzd0Zkb0JXeEROWGdDMjFXdmVLanBWcUZYVjBvQVRvcUtwNFBSdDFQ?= =?utf-8?B?Q1MwNzk3cjBDTlNsUENoQ0duZ2J2Uld1MGE1QUR6NGNqNlIxd3ZETWNPVm4w?= =?utf-8?B?TUphTjhLUTd4WXprT3NDZkxLNXNzV251dFRCUEVpUFR0RUZUQ2xQKzhOSUtE?= =?utf-8?B?bHJMQjFMelRvYkRFTDlkUmY5MkJRcDgvUDVFblRtaU93Y3VKbGIxc2pKNTQ5?= =?utf-8?B?U3BHTWIxMzR3WVB2SWNDQUxWa0ZCSHZsZHIrVElZQnd1a1JGeXlvdTN3VEIv?= =?utf-8?B?YzViUjRVYlJRMDZVZ09UWnMwbnFKY2tvVU1JeXdTVm93UXpFVnczN2ZNODBO?= =?utf-8?B?ZUE1MUlvVmJ6UXVIanRsaEZBbk5xQ014Ry9IRG15dnZxSld6MDFDL1duUkFm?= =?utf-8?B?M1ZOZkw3V1cvSGxUb24yUzJrbytCWklOWXVlSTFXM0Rld0t6N1JSZHRJTUVG?= =?utf-8?B?ZWVSdmNVYWt1WlRtUmt3U3VHNmU4YTNsOGZpeUtwdkMybkZlcTB3dTBYc1lu?= =?utf-8?B?c3l5Zk1HTWs2VDJLZm5YZFZwSXg5bmVGcGR2V3JESUFoc0RwZzV5UWExQnpX?= =?utf-8?B?WVBKTkxOM0NBWDNQRmhzaUpod1BYNkQ5bDYzMTQwVCtsQ01lWGpVSW9CM1ZY?= =?utf-8?B?SU5mTDd3bUFYWTZtVXJNaEgwcGlDNzgyakw0OWRYY09TWUhvK1U2cHJpY1hV?= =?utf-8?B?cmFDOVMxcmo4N1NjaVA1ZTJvQVA2S1NhOVo2VW1ZRGo5WkNOTkNGQXNYV2xZ?= =?utf-8?B?VDErUlovS3UrUWNWZUhyVTNHM09yUlVSVHVJYXNsVW9VTDI1OFgyaHd6TnJ0?= =?utf-8?B?NHp4MW9IRFNueVRSQVhqMXVkOGgwQmJ0Tm4zdDJQN05oSEpuV2hJMUw4dllQ?= =?utf-8?B?c3lMbFMxbUZhUm1TN3drTXBQQjU4cUUwUDRNcXNLdm9IMWJ2b0FSZzNwSlVS?= =?utf-8?Q?KbHPvRyp?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0FC1D91BADBD43E094372DE9B85B4EC4ciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BY5PR11MB4211.namprd11.prod.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 5d9cdf7d-c90d-42aa-7233-08d8a69b05b9 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 22 Dec 2020 17:00:01.8466 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: Ugg6vUAAcHNzH+Kl8V0ipiqxcjtj1wI8KsHsScGkRRQaPyxvcgCckNaOdNUzw1eJ X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SJ0PR11MB5021 X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.15, xch-aln-005.cisco.com X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-8.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Consensus check on Issue 13: Is decision making in the strategic body open to all? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 17:00:35 -0000 --_000_0FC1D91BADBD43E094372DE9B85B4EC4ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SGkgTWFyaywgSm9lbCwgYW5kIEVLUiwNCg0KVGhlIGN1cnJlbnQgcHJvcG9zZWQgdGV4dCBzdGF0 ZXM6DQoNCkFsbCBzdHJhdGVnaWMgYm9keSBtZWV0aW5ncyBhcmUgb3BlbiB0byB0aGUgcHVibGlj LCBhbGwgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbnMgb2YgaXNzdWVzIHRha2UgcGxhY2Ugb24gb3BlbiBtYWlsaW5nIGxp c3RzLCBhbmQgYW55b25lIGlzIHdlbGNvbWUgdG8gY29tbWVudCAvIGRpc2N1c3MuDQoNClBlcmhh cHMgc29tZXRoaW5nIGxpa2UgdGhpcyBtaWdodCBzdWl0IGV2ZXJ5b25lOg0KDQpBbGwgc3RyYXRl Z2ljIGJvZHkgbWVldGluZ3MgYXJlIG9wZW4gdG8gdGhlIHB1YmxpYywgYWxsIGRpc2N1c3Npb25z IG9mIGlzc3VlcyB0YWtlIHBsYWNlIG9uIG9wZW4gbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0cywgYW5kIGFueW9uZSBp cyB3ZWxjb21lIHRvIGNvbW1lbnQgLyBkaXNjdXNzLiAgVGhlIHN0cmF0ZWdpYyBib2R5IG1heSBk ZWNpZGUgdG8gdXNlIG90aGVyIG1lYW5zIG9mIGNvbW11bmljYXRpb24uDQoNClRoYXTigJlzIHJv dWdobHkgaW4gbGluZSB3aXRoIFJGQ3MgMjAyNiwgMjQxOCBhbmQgODg3NCwgdGFraW5nIGludG8g YWNjb3VudCB0aGF0IHdlIG5lZWQgYSBzdGFydGluZyBwb2ludC4NCg0KPz8/DQoNCkVsaW90DQoN Cg== --_000_0FC1D91BADBD43E094372DE9B85B4EC4ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <10F84D7C712B224A9952A89A7290CE1A@namprd11.prod.outlook.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWw+DQo8aGVhZD4NCjxtZXRhIGh0dHAtZXF1aXY9IkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZSIgY29udGVudD0i dGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4NCjwvaGVhZD4NCjxib2R5IHN0eWxlPSJ3b3JkLXdy YXA6IGJyZWFrLXdvcmQ7IC13ZWJraXQtbmJzcC1tb2RlOiBzcGFjZTsgbGluZS1icmVhazogYWZ0 ZXItd2hpdGUtc3BhY2U7IiBjbGFzcz0iIj4NCkhpIE1hcmssIEpvZWwsIGFuZCBFS1IsDQo8ZGl2 IGNsYXNzPSIiPjxiciBjbGFzcz0iIj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iIj5UaGUgY3VycmVu dCBwcm9wb3NlZCB0ZXh0IHN0YXRlczo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IiI+PGJyIGNsYXNzPSIi Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSIiPg0KPGJsb2NrcXVvdGUgdHlwZT0iY2l0ZSIgY2xhc3M9 IiI+PGNvZGUgY2xhc3M9IiI+QWxsIHN0cmF0ZWdpYyBib2R5IG1lZXRpbmdzIGFyZSBvcGVuIHRv IHRoZSBwdWJsaWMsIGFsbCBkaXNjdXNzaW9ucyBvZiBpc3N1ZXMgdGFrZSBwbGFjZSBvbiBvcGVu IG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdHMsIGFuZCBhbnlvbmUgaXMgd2VsY29tZSB0byBjb21tZW50IC8gZGlzY3Vz cy48L2NvZGU+PC9ibG9ja3F1b3RlPg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iIj48YnIgY2xhc3M9IiI+DQo8L2Rp dj4NClBlcmhhcHMgc29tZXRoaW5nIGxpa2UgdGhpcyBtaWdodCBzdWl0IGV2ZXJ5b25lOjwvZGl2 Pg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iIj48YnIgY2xhc3M9IiI+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IiI+DQo8 YmxvY2txdW90ZSB0eXBlPSJjaXRlIiBjbGFzcz0iIj48Y29kZSBjbGFzcz0iIj5BbGwgc3RyYXRl Z2ljIGJvZHkgbWVldGluZ3MgYXJlIG9wZW4gdG8gdGhlIHB1YmxpYywgYWxsIGRpc2N1c3Npb25z IG9mIGlzc3VlcyB0YWtlIHBsYWNlIG9uIG9wZW4gbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0cywgYW5kIGFueW9uZSBp cyB3ZWxjb21lIHRvIGNvbW1lbnQgLyBkaXNjdXNzLiAmbmJzcDtUaGUmbmJzcDs8L2NvZGU+PHNw YW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiBtb25vc3BhY2U7IiBjbGFzcz0iIj5zdHJhdGVnaWMNCiBi b2R5IG1heSBkZWNpZGUgdG8gdXNlIG90aGVyIG1lYW5zIG9mIGNvbW11bmljYXRpb24uPC9zcGFu PjwvYmxvY2txdW90ZT4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iIj48YnIgY2xhc3M9IiI+DQo8L2Rp dj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IiI+DQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSIiPlRoYXTigJlzIHJvdWdobHkgaW4gbGlu ZSB3aXRoIFJGQ3MgMjAyNiwgMjQxOCBhbmQgODg3NCwgdGFraW5nIGludG8gYWNjb3VudCB0aGF0 IHdlIG5lZWQgYSBzdGFydGluZyBwb2ludC48L2Rpdj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iIj48 YnIgY2xhc3M9IiI+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IiI+Pz8/PC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNz PSIiPjxiciBjbGFzcz0iIj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iIj5FbGlvdDwvZGl2Pg0KPGRp diBjbGFzcz0iIj48YnIgY2xhc3M9IiI+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvYm9keT4NCjwvaHRtbD4NCg== --_000_0FC1D91BADBD43E094372DE9B85B4EC4ciscocom_-- From nobody Tue Dec 22 10:14:33 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D45AA3A11D8 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 10:14:31 -0800 (PST) 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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-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 8qgnhE_yWJkT for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 10:14:30 -0800 (PST) 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 6124E3A11D6 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 10:14:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D0kxs1BZYz6GSRq; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 10:14:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1608660865; bh=mewbAVLthtH0+f5OB5nJy2e+XAkplNXfPjLNqt3aPsA=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=LNxkg8zVsXdV8gneY/WpZWgplz2nwtnmTd3tM4h1T/k3D1+fUTOldTS2obj8sJ5Ve AIxQoyMlzvWggc8zHDNbM1cpMCGQtaNjoZg8qVMFwnb3sM0hMEpvurFVTcz2C/Vsqy Gdywg3rnaDAUX3RVb3kfXW52QTqD6RDpZyg+zVwo= X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (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 4D0kxr3L2rz6GD7l; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 10:14:24 -0800 (PST) To: Eric Rescorla , Mark Nottingham Cc: rfced-future@iab.org References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <52205b0b-979e-e278-9511-e5853f9c4e9c@joelhalpern.com> From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: <02a1eb34-566d-b730-9c7f-8ec6c85969a6@joelhalpern.com> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 13:14:23 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 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: [Rfced-future] Consensus check on Issue 13: Is decision making in the strategic body open to all? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 18:14:32 -0000 I think your reading of "different from other working groups" and mine differ. i am probably willing to defer the discussion, but whenever it occurs, I will strongly object to any WG process in which the discussion does not appear in a sensible and useful fashion on the email list. I have no objection to using an issue tracker. I do not object if the issue tracker also records the email discussion (although I am not sure why). But if I as a participant need to go to the issue tracker to see or participate in the discussion, that is a non-starter in my book. of course it will in the end be up to the WG. Yours, Joel On 12/22/2020 10:21 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > I concur with Mark. I can't see any reason why this body should be > different from other WGs in this respect. > > -Ekr > > P.S. This is kind of in the weeds, but to the extent to which the intent > of this body is to reach the broader community of consumers of RFCs, I > think there's a reasonable argument that some sort of Web site (whether > GitHub, an issue tracker, or a site like discourse) is more accessible > than a mailing list, in that one can easily engage on just the issues > one cares about. > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 8:47 PM Mark Nottingham > wrote: > > On 22 Dec 2020, at 3:43 pm, Joel M. Halpern > wrote: > > > > I would strongly prefer that for this proposed body, all > discussions take place on the email list. > > > > That does not preclude "using an issue manager" to manage / track > / record issues.  It does preclude using the issue manager for > discussion of issues. > > I don't think we should be specifying how the group operates at this > level in what is effectively its charter -- we let WGs decide how > they operate (within the bounds of what our process requires), this > should be no different. > > I.e., let's have that conversation in that body, not here. If it > decides upon such a constraint, so be it. > > Cheers, > > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ > > -- > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future > > From nobody Tue Dec 22 10:15:11 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 751293A11D8 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 10:15:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 wD1WhOLvPqQr for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 10:15:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 196723A11D6 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 10:15:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61730300BBC for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 13:15:05 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id x43ziUqAGCQR for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 13:15:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (pool-141-156-161-153.washdc.fios.verizon.net [141.156.161.153]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 94C1D300ADC; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 13:15:03 -0500 (EST) From: Russ Housley Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A1673C79-B021-47AF-9266-2BAB13E5EFF2" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.17\)) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 13:15:04 -0500 In-Reply-To: <0FC1D91B-ADBD-43E0-9437-2DE9B85B4EC4@cisco.com> Cc: "rfced-future@iab.org" To: Eliot Lear References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <52205b0b-979e-e278-9511-e5853f9c4e9c@joelhalpern.com> <0FC1D91B-ADBD-43E0-9437-2DE9B85B4EC4@cisco.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.17) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Consensus check on Issue 13: Is decision making in the strategic body open to all? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 18:15:10 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_A1673C79-B021-47AF-9266-2BAB13E5EFF2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Dec 22, 2020, at 12:00 PM, Eliot Lear (elear) = wrote: >=20 > Hi Mark, Joel, and EKR, >=20 > The current proposed text states: >=20 >> All strategic body meetings are open to the public, all discussions = of issues take place on open mailing lists, and anyone is welcome to = comment / discuss. >=20 > Perhaps something like this might suit everyone: >=20 >> All strategic body meetings are open to the public, all discussions = of issues take place on open mailing lists, and anyone is welcome to = comment / discuss. The strategic body may decide to use other means of = communication. >=20 >=20 > That=E2=80=99s roughly in line with RFCs 2026, 2418 and 8874, taking = into account that we need a starting point. Alignment with the WG-governing RFCs is the right path. However, = decisions need to be confirmed on the open mailing list, even if other = forms of discussion are used along the way. Russ --Apple-Mail=_A1673C79-B021-47AF-9266-2BAB13E5EFF2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8

On Dec 22, 2020, at 12:00 PM, Eliot Lear (elear) <elear=3D40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

Hi Mark, Joel, and EKR,

The current proposed text states:

All strategic body = meetings are open to the public, all discussions of issues take place on = open mailing lists, and anyone is welcome to comment / = discuss.

Perhaps something like this might suit everyone:

All strategic body = meetings are open to the public, all discussions of issues take place on = open mailing lists, and anyone is welcome to comment / discuss. =  The strategic body may decide to use other means of = communication.

That=E2=80=99s roughly in line with RFCs 2026, 2418 and = 8874, taking into account that we need a starting = point.

Alignment with the WG-governing RFCs is the right path. =  However, decisions need to be confirmed on the open mailing list, = even if other forms of discussion are used along the way.

Russ

= --Apple-Mail=_A1673C79-B021-47AF-9266-2BAB13E5EFF2-- From nobody Tue Dec 22 11:05:39 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F1D33A1215 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 11:05:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BSSqgjjBWsuT for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 11:05:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lf1-x129.google.com (mail-lf1-x129.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::129]) (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 574953A1214 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 11:05:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf1-x129.google.com with SMTP id m25so34356552lfc.11 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 11:05:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=SJ/yBsfHxOPSN74bz7OdAl4TnWtSvO0ELyVVDUacUKY=; b=X1B/F3CrNrPMJXanlGQgN1RMvjgwbqCD9OJLcqXnEgi8U7WcQp1DjVNEwiBKuQZ5/K wOwXz5dtpIgYWPMyClxVXZ5C32sZnFpYoiO5xp4ioX2obwxpSeBYFI7mxSbofVnJ5/hj W6WXATO+gNwMgZbH1Z9WhoV35erIkhmXYmx8iJ/ug8X2C5W1jxFQoEsanyA5DkaEikxh XjZetM6QDE7HG+M4sFZCNIselqECtiZKgWk09qZ5/2X4PMzo9AjAtKpOOhUnLmNgnqrx uHR2ycTTI8dC25y00aClTibOFyIcyOb1UertTZramH/pJcQSKvmGwXskCBQTnEv35Fve kSag== 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=SJ/yBsfHxOPSN74bz7OdAl4TnWtSvO0ELyVVDUacUKY=; b=AQrLIaOV/65pzAWDcKJGFp+R7YQpvlCo5kUMpSOg/uhOV0ZShx+C431bU/yuaUmCa0 5wclk3tUynC4A7foDpR/b3bbsNB+maTvh1p0K6/LT1m25zqJFTWSdjcUTB4X5hbGEUt2 nI+G5l2zdANMmoPDs1yD+rVJG2pKlri6k00mNjVsh7d8SMDNd0xjZDJEzEwW/smcyGpC BfGhH1/GkFwHZBrT5CirCJcvEbopyqMJMtk+BGFfvt054VN8g9bsI4dMRc1wBNho67SN wY+b7avk4qKTW/rvsHwL/HQxFYSBWj7Tp01CCSjCFimjAbhNEhzvCny+lqbTICTdnT2u TQRw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530fyJTR5qk6HkEwV2NEE0+H+9u7ckqiuDtQ9q76chave60mW1d1 fni/siLIJJzUGvCUrAJMeKPs8hKRvEt/uOAqEmMt/t8Hhsuq9w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx79MzDTfaP3XVC9+76BalLyFhqanhY/L1zC4kmCCsDkUxovUCvIuV1J26zeh0Ic80O5FIgj8S8JpX6b6jYPuQ= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8106:: with SMTP id d6mr10818798ljg.217.1608663934617; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 11:05:34 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <52205b0b-979e-e278-9511-e5853f9c4e9c@joelhalpern.com> <02a1eb34-566d-b730-9c7f-8ec6c85969a6@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: <02a1eb34-566d-b730-9c7f-8ec6c85969a6@joelhalpern.com> From: Eric Rescorla Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 11:04:58 -0800 Message-ID: To: "Joel M. Halpern" Cc: Mark Nottingham , rfced-future@iab.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000062dc6605b712425f" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Consensus check on Issue 13: Is decision making in the strategic body open to all? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 19:05:38 -0000 --00000000000062dc6605b712425f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 10:14 AM Joel M. Halpern wrote: > I think your reading of "different from other working groups" and mine > differ. > RFC 8474 leaves the question of how to use GitHub and similar tools up to the WG. I believe that practice should apply here. i am probably willing to defer the discussion, but whenever it occurs, I > will strongly object to any WG process in which the discussion does not > appear in a sensible and useful fashion on the email list. I have no > objection to using an issue tracker. I do not object if the issue > tracker also records the email discussion (although I am not sure why). > But if I as a participant need to go to the issue tracker to see or > participate in the discussion, that is a non-starter in my book. FWIW, this is not the case for Github. It is straightforward to subscribe to the repository and be notified when new issues are created and/or when comments are made. I, personally, use both this mode and the Web interface. -Ekr of > course it will in the end be up to the WG. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 12/22/2020 10:21 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > I concur with Mark. I can't see any reason why this body should be > > different from other WGs in this respect. > > > > -Ekr > > > > P.S. This is kind of in the weeds, but to the extent to which the intent > > of this body is to reach the broader community of consumers of RFCs, I > > think there's a reasonable argument that some sort of Web site (whether > > GitHub, an issue tracker, or a site like discourse) is more accessible > > than a mailing list, in that one can easily engage on just the issues > > one cares about. > > > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 8:47 PM Mark Nottingham > > wrote: > > > > On 22 Dec 2020, at 3:43 pm, Joel M. Halpern > > wrote: > > > > > > I would strongly prefer that for this proposed body, all > > discussions take place on the email list. > > > > > > That does not preclude "using an issue manager" to manage / track > > / record issues. It does preclude using the issue manager for > > discussion of issues. > > > > I don't think we should be specifying how the group operates at this > > level in what is effectively its charter -- we let WGs decide how > > they operate (within the bounds of what our process requires), this > > should be no different. > > > > I.e., let's have that conversation in that body, not here. If it > > decides upon such a constraint, so be it. > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > -- > > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ > > > > -- > > Rfced-future mailing list > > Rfced-future@iab.org > > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future > > > > > --00000000000062dc6605b712425f Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 10:14 AM Joel= M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com<= /a>> wrote:
I= think your reading of "different from other working groups" and = mine
differ.


i am probably willing to defer the discussion, but whenever it occurs, I will strongly object to any WG process in which the discussion does not appear in a sensible and useful fashion on the email list.=C2=A0 I have no =
objection to using an issue tracker.=C2=A0 I do not object if the issue tracker also records the email discussion (although I am not sure why). =C2=A0 But if I as a participant need to go to the issue tracker to see or =
participate in the discussion, that is a non-starter in my book.

FWIW, this is not the case for Github. It is straight= forward to subscribe to the
repository and be notified when new i= ssues are created and/or when comments
are made. I, personally, u= se both this mode and the Web interface.

-Ekr<= /div>


=C2=A0 of
course it will in the end be up to the WG.

Yours,
Joel

On 12/22/2020 10:21 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> I concur with Mark. I can't see any reason why this body should be=
> different from other WGs in this respect.
>
> -Ekr
>
> P.S. This is kind of in the weeds, but to the extent to which the inte= nt
> of this body is to reach the broader community of consumers of RFCs, I=
> think there's a reasonable argument that some sort of Web site (wh= ether
> GitHub, an issue tracker, or a site like discourse) is more accessible=
> than a mailing list, in that one can easily engage on just the issues =
> one cares about.
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 8:47 PM Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net
> <mailto:mnot@mno= t.net>> wrote:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0On 22 Dec 2020, at 3:43 pm, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>> wrote:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > I would strongly prefer that for this propose= d body, all
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0discussions take place on the email list.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > That does not preclude "using an issue m= anager" to manage / track
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0/ record issues.=C2=A0 It does preclude using the i= ssue manager for
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0discussion of issues.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0I don't think we should be specifying how the g= roup operates at this
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0level in what is effectively its charter -- we let = WGs decide how
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0they operate (within the bounds of what our process= requires), this
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0should be no different.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0I.e., let's have that conversation in that body= , not here. If it
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0decides upon such a constraint, so be it.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Cheers,
>
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0--
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ <https://www= .mnot.net/>
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0--
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Rfced-future mailing list
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Rfced-future@iab.org <mailto:Rfced-future@iab.org>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://www.iab.org/mailman= /listinfo/rfced-future
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<https://www.iab.org/mai= lman/listinfo/rfced-future>
>
--00000000000062dc6605b712425f-- From nobody Tue Dec 22 11:59:22 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7297D3A1263 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 11:59:20 -0800 (PST) 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-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 l0RuxnpwM7B9 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 11:59:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pl1-x62b.google.com (mail-pl1-x62b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62b]) (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 41A043A1261 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 11:59:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pl1-x62b.google.com with SMTP id 4so7968678plk.5 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 11:59:19 -0800 (PST) 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=81ut7c8FkpmGhc8/Q3j+pjN05k8TXosog5y5zb+moXc=; b=VJqTv46F1+s/MfrWOASB569MeMJDkfZjcSTLXVhEoUpdGGNVqiiJbQ26u3rM2qRXOK eMu2dlp82R9qCbcExB3CpyG6z82+9dmE9PoWv5CJ48OgCaYAp0ovc3+KQoB7dg9Yntky DLHi3rkYnUpB44S75oco4sqr6mdxyDQK7l5vkI/zEWZxIigQasOtro06duNP0Ed707Fa zPzbcXbSq/ngAoLm1YcrGrax9pyM7SYQscG28Wk+xr8Ow1iYJ7eyFI7o4x8wRQqw4foZ BOcE5/5a2GJ5Ni51FN+wlSxXeE4Eo7LSMr9bFVveLsNvOYqZOpr43GmICurLIyzD3efv fWfg== 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=81ut7c8FkpmGhc8/Q3j+pjN05k8TXosog5y5zb+moXc=; b=dkU5QFpyBTA+HpLNgn97m+cVTXmFzYhQrCpTdIfHwSKZ/JA7PEn1cCw7KjvbnbIpRg KxiXZ6g6VJioYv9AwcTqZz25rLF/AnaEs7YUQMCZ28gDRkhFwOAxJG5kbwRfLl8qEQON XukFUYY9tuW7WiVWyFvpSt1fRsdOybo/3Txz2TVek/lELlpf2zrFjG95sftcuQbQiaAV pcv2X15f8by7WLXO//+AC6/FrHO+rqJ0scjipHxUdEwxaUO7HUhgNQlrMXpeQV26MC6Q pfpXo+quPoD1gDQkwJyUPFX3APVAj16Umd2skYr6CLr0/bv6yqGs+6x7zxNqYE6iM8jK DRLg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532uFgKxbVxsYXB9DkKz541I5IqMcTQhumSRy1wtrA31MOauxAjT 5T6G0fvylCydueTtAEPRT7cidE7Tm31qBg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy8r9XGMUzoe5fHr38b5MGLW/mkp9y0YAA2tzTeeoOMZyza6Vp5cSyY4CffPCB6rbpul6BP3A== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:7e42:b029:dc:f98:44e2 with SMTP id a2-20020a1709027e42b02900dc0f9844e2mr22048679pln.49.1608667158230; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 11:59:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.131.28]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 3sm22781658pgk.81.2020.12.22.11.59.15 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 22 Dec 2020 11:59:17 -0800 (PST) To: Russ Housley , Eliot Lear Cc: "rfced-future@iab.org" References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <52205b0b-979e-e278-9511-e5853f9c4e9c@joelhalpern.com> <0FC1D91B-ADBD-43E0-9437-2DE9B85B4EC4@cisco.com> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 08:59:14 +1300 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: [Rfced-future] Consensus check on Issue 13: Is decision making in the strategic body open to all? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 19:59:20 -0000 On 23-Dec-20 07:15, Russ Housley wrote: >=20 >=20 >> On Dec 22, 2020, at 12:00 PM, Eliot Lear (elear) > wrote: >> >> Hi Mark, Joel, and EKR, >> >> The current proposed text states: >> >>> |All strategic body meetings are open to the public, all discussions = of issues take place on open mailing lists, and anyone is welcome to comm= ent / discuss.| >> >> Perhaps something like this might suit everyone: >> >>> |All strategic body meetings are open to the public, all discussions = of issues take place on open mailing lists, and anyone is welcome to comm= ent / discuss. =C2=A0The=C2=A0|strategic body may decide to use other mea= ns of communication. >> >> That=E2=80=99s roughly in line with RFCs 2026, 2418 and 8874, taking i= nto account that we need a starting point. >=20 > Alignment with the WG-governing RFCs is the right path. =C2=A0However, = decisions need to be confirmed on the open mailing list, even if other fo= rms of discussion are used along the way. That isn't a matter of choice in the IETF; it's a rule (BCP25, RFC2418). And:=20 On 23-Dec-20 08:04, Eric Rescorla wrote: =2E.. > But if I as a participant need to go to the issue tracker to see = or > participate in the discussion, that is a non-starter in my book. >=20 >=20 > FWIW, this is not the case for Github. It is straightforward to subscri= be to the > repository and be notified when new issues are created and/or when comm= ents > are made. I, personally, use both this mode and the Web interface. My experience is that email notifications from Github are usually rather cryptic and context-free. They are useful for communication between co-au= thors=20 but of less value to spectators or occasional commentators. Brian From nobody Tue Dec 22 12:42:28 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B15473A129D for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 12:42:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v2Y19XtHKeEJ for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 12:42:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qt1-x830.google.com (mail-qt1-x830.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::830]) (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 8CC323A129A for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 12:42:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qt1-x830.google.com with SMTP id j26so9883961qtq.8 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 12:42:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=mMVyQ+J5YJk9rATEYKdAMhgYMUSRdu3DlVCPJkxEpZo=; b=O14T9/aZkzYd16IvcF6UEtnmFBsT/SwwcCBLVKri2J2ooUA8TTD9WGxvkl70UiNWq/ 0IjA9C0fVvzCOYvKGx3pHn2y8oJLUIGT6I+z7POJra9TBn2hy2JvheeqJ6MSQ26GrGIj MTSafqurP8dFXT9KoHgOwGZbNokuA2WLl0u1hut81faDI83nxfJnypWX2uWHYjSnqJAu qVoZj2RgR8RJlMAeswvlbUBkpKvMagAX0EM7FeCuyf5adXcaIKLSni7xChBfkm7v6tM1 sQ6cwDHFD8mxDOxe3kRoYmxfNBp3NVF3lJviD779V6jVdUqvVovBrIpso5OTuEzFKYn0 Ux9w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=mMVyQ+J5YJk9rATEYKdAMhgYMUSRdu3DlVCPJkxEpZo=; b=NmwXpwa0/C4n62Ebkw+HkHyH2xdXKnQS6gEyb3Youv6t0WSGC9jYRVXju+fW11JVnf 7L3nClAg1pK36oIJYjq5nmM86t6NBm+wkSWjUJQhboyslXw43Oknkk303EsHRt6D14ZW pTpjV8gW0gLyYuRDrFlvGcEGVg1j55fSZ2RlbgMpWu8qA97m+/BYH9OnzVMSgTPz0dw7 79TSWFdflNq/n8GIQie1+dNb6o0TiWQzyqlYS74SusJCqp30HUiy8a23QCT6BqAq8bVb 1ew37UhBWwGvnBifd3KeJhw46vN1D+hoe+w5svLXwXmiTzpT4zb8XSwkc42LBkmzxbHL JaoA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53042vzpP4U0S5mKujpMP8La0teUf/7O2pX+PjUu3vXLbtGK+lpP lpDDXXz/2hDkyTw0HtOhfEoUzfPejKUEdQbm X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzm+Ikf3mivunqxujUy6xVL5vcI2M+LZUTXbn2i7Po8+tBf/rotTu+ZgJt+Pe9mgWVyJ8ECSA== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:6bc2:: with SMTP id b2mr23111353qtt.286.1608669743788; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 12:42:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.23] (pool-108-28-189-254.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [108.28.189.254]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z40sm8709535qtz.81.2020.12.22.12.42.22 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 22 Dec 2020 12:42:23 -0800 (PST) To: rfced-future@iab.org References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <52205b0b-979e-e278-9511-e5853f9c4e9c@joelhalpern.com> <0FC1D91B-ADBD-43E0-9437-2DE9B85B4EC4@cisco.com> From: Michael StJohns Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 15:42:19 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Consensus check on Issue 13: Is decision making in the strategic body open to all? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 20:42:27 -0000 On 12/22/2020 2:59 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > My experience is that email notifications from Github are usually rather > cryptic and context-free. They are useful for communication between co-authors > but of less value to spectators or occasional commentators. What he said. From nobody Tue Dec 22 15:15:01 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 854AA3A0FF0 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 15:14:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.895 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JpRiwEE02vXo for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 15:14:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lf1-x131.google.com (mail-lf1-x131.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::131]) (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 8811E3A127A for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 15:14:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf1-x131.google.com with SMTP id x20so35741210lfe.12 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 15:14:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=NKexKiaT51D/TBDA4qkE6I8JLQoq8+gN9TgVih2vFHQ=; b=Q6TeYMOz+dRb5dbO9fyH2s/d5Ex67ixVonLM72aKkI2ccVpyRHFdaeL8GX4gt8AwgP WFFG/dYb8grg3YiOTZg1zbG55ipuAmCyq6b/yx/WtppYu0JhtBzvXZTFpLL5FQMviCdn Ob4SvQRqpl/SukhDEnhVZu0qie3gICr8xjkErorCK8DcpmXfq39UPUdAR8u1tlXFA/7k JLp6o+BC39icxtyKNc2bfg97X75lXhzUU1aV9opGTJyNUU7wmTtHvZapxRWnCMQ++6U6 pqlmlKoTABLZpBHtEHSQe2R0Mb8gwp0GHqL3BgMfYL9fwK1N2nR2Ew2S6u4V4Yj2hCpd inLA== 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=NKexKiaT51D/TBDA4qkE6I8JLQoq8+gN9TgVih2vFHQ=; b=qI+X0F31SDAV6xwXUPTnl2eHxNsCuEVxSwB68sytXzTVqHlZaVOhV7JtTTsCy9pxqe VcF/VgJIjuZQoVHlAnQq5Fk7XU53ZPBNDaKc5RrqSBpl5UoIkYlGHucfV31SgpIgfeYq tm8Mc+dX3acm3unKVdSM2g6YHajkywQuFuwtNWMZ+xXhI+mbwUcO4Y71ircVqXeYHAnI snnNN7UpR/OzpzHsp7lBrjYE/rfNgA9zWcPGcv2P2NIoG406foSE5bEmkqvQh3Y+3De5 zekmMNncffcYgHOAqt2xI6vUR40zjjDF3rpbPLK3dbI7GxkdP7xIZyBvyxQtEQRAucWC ox5w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532uPXdAPTQvGeS959ZFqiPkzjpMlSn6MB3DwcaqZvCf9XtEiqM+ SaTUPhPqBlP0GvkAjWWu0JMWHmVByoIq3uOzU5vE0w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzwn5U/OOhSEiHkjWSfklyEuXYceQiT5+VztJ9nWixYbq2lHtzFsW8EWOEFmm0sDvlPQZhIBQY9eojTLHV0TzU= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9f53:: with SMTP id v19mr10342695ljk.109.1608678894497; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 15:14:54 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <99E11840-6AEB-46B5-A436-510B5FB7133E@cisco.com> <2416DA61-9442-4124-A66F-F66E23FE053D@mnot.net> In-Reply-To: <2416DA61-9442-4124-A66F-F66E23FE053D@mnot.net> From: Eric Rescorla Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 15:14:18 -0800 Message-ID: To: Mark Nottingham Cc: Eliot Lear , rfced-future@iab.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000010848705b715beda" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 12: Consensus check on baseline text X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 23:14:59 -0000 --00000000000010848705b715beda Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 7:59 PM Mark Nottingham wrote: > I like RFC Series Expert! Comment below. > > > On 18 Dec 2020, at 8:42 pm, Eliot Lear > wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > > > In the last interim, we agreed that the following text should be the > starting point for text to describe the role of the RS[EA]. Could you > please state concerns about this text as a starting point no later than 8 > January 2020? You can also find it in GH here. Feel free to create PRs, > but please discuss them on list. > > > > Eliot > > Role of the RFC Series Editor > > > > > > Draft! Please submit PRs, but discuss on list. > > > > This person will be a senior professional with deep knowledge of > technical publishing. > > I'm not sure what 'senior' means in this context - in respect to whom are > they 'senior'? > > 'experienced' might be more appropriate. > Now that I've had a chance to review this text I find it rather less illuminating than I had hoped. "deep knowledge of technical publishing" is a pretty vague term. I'd need to understand in rather more detail what knowledge people expect someone to have here before I would be able to conclude that this was correct or incorrect. Could someone who is in favor of this text perhaps provide some clarity here? -Ekr > > > The RSE will operate by providing expert advice to the RSAWG, and if > requested, to the RPC, on any relevant matters. The value this individual > provides is an understanding of the process of technical publishing. They > expected to learn how the process is applied in the RFC series. They will > be asked to produce regular reviews of the process and identify problems > and opportunities for improvement. There are also opportunities to > spontaneously learn of these problems, likely the result of interactions > with day-to-day operations. The person may be requested to draft documents > > > > For example, the RSE might be consulted about proposed changes to the > style guide, RFC formatting in general, web presence, copyright matters, or > archiving policy, or might of their own initiative suggest such changes to > the RSAWG. > > > > The RSE is expected to attend all RSAWG meetings, and to have an ongoing > working relationship with the RPC and tooling team. > > > > -- > > Rfced-future mailing list > > Rfced-future@iab.org > > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ > > -- > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future > --00000000000010848705b715beda Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 7:59 PM Mark = Nottingham <mnot@mnot= .net> wrote:
I like RFC Series Expert!=C2=A0 Comment below.

> On 18 Dec 2020, at 8:42 pm, Eliot Lear <lear=3D40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org&= gt; wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> In the last interim, we agreed that the following text should be the s= tarting point for text to describe the role of the RS[EA].=C2=A0 Could you = please state concerns about this text as a starting point no later than 8 J= anuary 2020?=C2=A0 You can also find it in GH here.=C2=A0 =C2=A0Feel free t= o create PRs, but please discuss them on list.
>
> Eliot
> Role of the RFC Series Editor
>
>
> Draft! Please submit PRs, but discuss on list.
>
> This person will be a senior professional with deep knowledge of techn= ical publishing.

I'm not sure what 'senior' means in this context - in respect t= o whom are they 'senior'?

'experienced' might be more appropriate.

=
Now that I've had a chance to review this text I find it rat= her less illuminating than I had hoped.

"deep= knowledge of technical publishing" is a pretty vague term. I'd ne= ed to understand in rather more detail what knowledge people expect someone= to have here before I would be able to conclude that this was correct or i= ncorrect. Could someone who is in favor of this text perhaps provide some c= larity here?

-Ekr

> The RSE will operate by providing expert advice to the RSAWG, and if r= equested, to the RPC, on any relevant matters. The value this individual pr= ovides is an understanding of the process of technical publishing. They exp= ected to learn how the process is applied in the RFC series. They will be a= sked to produce regular reviews of the process and identify problems and op= portunities for improvement. There are also opportunities to spontaneously = learn of these problems, likely the result of interactions with day-to-day = operations. The person may be requested to draft documents
>
> For example, the RSE might be consulted about proposed changes to the = style guide, RFC formatting in general, web presence, copyright matters, or= archiving policy, or might of their own initiative suggest such changes to= the RSAWG.
>
> The RSE is expected to attend all RSAWG meetings, and to have an ongoi= ng working relationship with the RPC and tooling team.
>
> --
> Rfced-future mailing list
> Rfced-future= @iab.org
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-fut= ure

--
Mark Nottingham=C2=A0 =C2=A0https://www.mnot.net/

--
Rfced-future mailing list
Rfced-future@iab.= org
https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
--00000000000010848705b715beda-- From nobody Tue Dec 22 15:46:46 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D3683A1322 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 15:46:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=itaoyama.onmicrosoft.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 u09ntsGJ7mRO for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 15:46:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from JPN01-TY1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr1400130.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.140.130]) (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 620BD3A1321 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 15:46:42 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=e8LXpyoTXakJV0f0urbU8XyUcPK998I44MOCkppj1ISbm9e3Y/HmYu3+tZgPNMZkZPhVerWdq6lF7W+vkQQ8h6StwZE/27uJgKk+R85iTbEerEr8tprrtroeClcpqRymjnniyJ5B1umPE5t4yRmnu3MuyO8dGwYU2GDjPpWC/YP14nXe7yS442Zkzb2txJCMHSbfvv/DgMMhPRuvY98AW0my2rNrsELq0k88bnZBwbUNSKE72frcjcAv+nKx8zA3+Xamq8rVYEZj/avUGQrZM28ZiMo2Ut0L2GOnFuyAhiVoRZjhh3Wu9F3e5hkzDKSaaulrv9IUKQTT36nc0KwN2g== 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=241FaPhQfzg4k7viQ6rQwmLPzy26NCiHHlrbmi4ZKpI=; b=YI8d5PQ07mAUO3DjXAesbUijm+yeYeu8ZF5oe7t7SUvjc5gKMXlaQ6AwpM3jJSqulxV29pQF+VdgBze0d3NopAFXrVOf0yS0GKySfP+AbwxReHRrpxheWtmmjPLBWCIQlHyPKYnWrRUkfFLAEAJ46cBKEAzntmTqo9ogV+FnSAFqAUKSP5N81EAvyjaVpkiS7SqZrNzZXroR5CYMtsUrKbr/x+vdXovuT3mRJwJlZGzJ3ApTqT+HHOseB8FhJkLX/TvAs0lUzO+w0tpWlN+ljI5hndKd93hojG/0yA5G1FTa30LUYutHqKWP6wd1Gn6APDv1nvtFQ9xExLLweRCWUw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=it.aoyama.ac.jp; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=it.aoyama.ac.jp; dkim=pass header.d=it.aoyama.ac.jp; arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=itaoyama.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-itaoyama-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=241FaPhQfzg4k7viQ6rQwmLPzy26NCiHHlrbmi4ZKpI=; b=KdYIIgEy+ZsAFdqcTx2k4u8TcVFed8wswHOVYbcMF7Wk1RbWE/utndfIysyhrXH8dKe/Q9nHhN8WoqnlFdfMc5naHVrIfko3wF/NU6wJCzqUnV+YPHpAWHH5nJC2xTTyis9fV13AarNbiHtd6BwXnZ+1rZ61zrYBUaF8MbVLwsA= Authentication-Results: iab.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;iab.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=it.aoyama.ac.jp; Received: from OSBPR01MB2566.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (2603:1096:604:1c::13) by OSAPR01MB2228.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (2603:1096:603:1b::14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3676.25; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 23:46:40 +0000 Received: from OSBPR01MB2566.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::cd30:9f1d:e76d:e8a8]) by OSBPR01MB2566.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::cd30:9f1d:e76d:e8a8%6]) with mapi id 15.20.3676.033; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 23:46:40 +0000 To: rfced-future@iab.org References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <52205b0b-979e-e278-9511-e5853f9c4e9c@joelhalpern.com> <0FC1D91B-ADBD-43E0-9437-2DE9B85B4EC4@cisco.com> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_J=2e_D=c3=bcrst?= Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University Message-ID: <2b22afdf-4a56-cba1-3f92-ce57f245d9a7@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 08:46:38 +0900 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [121.118.76.82] X-ClientProxiedBy: TYAP286CA0009.JPNP286.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2603:1096:404:8015::14) To OSBPR01MB2566.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (2603:1096:604:1c::13) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1 Received: from [192.168.1.6] (121.118.76.82) by TYAP286CA0009.JPNP286.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2603:1096:404:8015::14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3676.29 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 23:46:40 +0000 X-MS-PublicTrafficType: Email X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: 4390a018-066b-44c4-13cf-08d8a6d3d47d X-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: OSAPR01MB2228: X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: X-MS-Oob-TLC-OOBClassifiers: OLM:6430; X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck: 1 X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0; X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: mnCbiD0gUiZJJGywtfXuBUfSkHvSAgAlF2Ju5+ZoCeaWGHdrx7efIZNAKLGKIZfL+hFbBBdykDeTgUG34edze2f4XC33AMVd+7gQGSYDBh5yyut5k9FZMI4J6TXLw31zMZXjKrF0mdVI1OIB0BpppDXK7eYYsuZMWJj1F7xq+JqY458IZA6NtQ1cu12BQ3fu/a9qs5DQDSRkxDrb7KsxFvcXGSKQmJ8jRAMes1AK5+jotTfpZaBND/YEHbP1aIGV/ZjVlskCHFA0T6wSlEo0MVZdioBuYyHrPpRBoA9HHPQrDhsmswl3iOnIU1sC+oyo9r9yTRo+xwyUQyXMt3Ni8/zmze03PrWazZYHBYef8/CeMpBVfNH3aRndccobjKZK6kK8WbM/GzPKrd9biqVgX4sMDMAB/gCe0suH6rKaq38A04ZjmJCUDvVkJ9nEpfhxvIOVbdBj/CzDKDTTsKog3ApIT3xWYXedJ3VdIf1BhQg= X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:OSBPR01MB2566.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(396003)(346002)(366004)(39840400004)(376002)(136003)(36916002)(8936002)(66476007)(31696002)(31686004)(186003)(8676002)(66556008)(26005)(86362001)(52116002)(66946007)(6916009)(2906002)(53546011)(16526019)(956004)(5660300002)(6486002)(478600001)(83380400001)(316002)(2616005)(16576012)(4744005)(786003)(45980500001)(43740500002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData: =?utf-8?B?SFVib0cwV3ZLSW1nS1RQaUk3QzdsbnNJWmE0ZmNGUFI4SEtteVRvRHJ0NnpD?= =?utf-8?B?eWVxNlU2VER3a2V0NjZJNnE4eW1kdUVNR1pqUGFXUzQ4NGM0czJ3MEhHMzkz?= =?utf-8?B?c3JXZUpBMS9GRWxRTUszam5jbGQzazdtM2M2V0FIRklERk1kc3NVOG1QYTVo?= =?utf-8?B?YlBjVnoxZWNSOFZRUi9aSjFGam9CUE1OdExQUGpSRWFHUFUrMWcrRk1RY095?= =?utf-8?B?V0ptdjdmQ2wvV2NhaWhBbGI3THF6SnYrY2JacXF4ZThTNDMxdXhDS0hDYUVa?= =?utf-8?B?RUxSQmV6ZmZZaGtkcGtXcHJXL2NRTk15KzFTdUVTUHFXUFVnQ0pIOXN3RFBD?= =?utf-8?B?TDdmejdLNlVWM0FOcUZPMVRKZ1FNWld0czBKd201ejBhNGErQitwWGZTc3N5?= =?utf-8?B?bHZCYUpMWnJITzB3ZmR3VmRFVlNvL2RVK3lsNnFwWEU5Z1JMcXVMTE5McWdn?= =?utf-8?B?RHRXNUNhNStLY0pIWnhyUFBQUFVKK1JxdXBncWc2a05CYnJGZUYrRVZkTjVm?= =?utf-8?B?MEx4ZldPNVlXdXFIbEVyQUZvK3NhRXlkNjdFY2xBSW5uSkVBMkhQbEI2c2tt?= =?utf-8?B?ZkZENC9kRVloVHNjT3FGcE9ERVIrQU03a1lmMnVDSHBmNlc2Y0JiR3JBMTJ1?= =?utf-8?B?VHBESlJpdTlhWFNWTzV5djU3RXM2VEFvaENhR0lNOGtWeE5HUWdyMDRLY3lV?= =?utf-8?B?YWx3bEltZDgzOXZFMTVVZHF4Q3NnTzYvK0JHcTVhaGJIbnladWFNUkY2WVRh?= =?utf-8?B?cm8zRFVuanV1YWUrRnhjZkgyc05ZZTEzWUdBTDAvb0plK0RBbEVRb0VuT3Zm?= =?utf-8?B?Z2gvelNxSldHKzhTUjJUd0hUL1c0Z2phRjZ6VDFKeTM0VTVxdVRtU2RQWVlX?= =?utf-8?B?dmRJYmJuY2hMVGwzQTRjdzNhUVhveEN0ZzMzL2c2U29Ta3AwQmV2THZHcjJ0?= =?utf-8?B?S3BFS2xaOGJwSTBsaHZSeEw2WjFyVGRJK1dGaFYrdlQxWGZ0cmJCMHVzZXNi?= =?utf-8?B?eGNET0tWQ09zbjBXOFdQcXdjNEdaSmZNN0l6WVMyNEZ0SWgyRGJQNDl6T2hi?= =?utf-8?B?cVhGemVEbm4vTEJPVW9Gd2piTTM3SE5Eb20zWWJyT0R1OU1CRXQ2ZTVMRUQr?= =?utf-8?B?NkF4NkxzcUdMR2FJZzRzVUdQemFtWFAzenY3dDd3UTcrZDRnbUs5cmVPUEtQ?= =?utf-8?B?TndNeW85Z0REWGcybUxOMkhnMjB6RHBiZ096YXdkbFZ3STlJWmMvWElMSk10?= =?utf-8?B?WTA3S3dWNnlZK3RCMXRva1Q1VUM5SlJtRUhoSGlJeFJpQy8zOGxQeVl2blJv?= =?utf-8?Q?1VbD0Gy/S2UC16pcA8YXvHb72LjyZ7BcBi?= X-OriginatorOrg: it.aoyama.ac.jp X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: OSBPR01MB2566.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Dec 2020 23:46:40.5652 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: e02030e7-4d45-463e-a968-0290e738c18e X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 4390a018-066b-44c4-13cf-08d8a6d3d47d X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: GJbNT4pWPgB2INK4DE81wd9+FZblYTTddmrHHDMOwwS18vHeynDvDxwKim73hrZJtdUCiaaK+N+0lMbmPIIsqg== X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: OSAPR01MB2228 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Consensus check on Issue 13: Is decision making in the strategic body open to all? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 23:46:45 -0000 On 23/12/2020 05:42, Michael StJohns wrote: > On 12/22/2020 2:59 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> My experience is that email notifications from Github are usually rather >> cryptic and context-free. They are useful for communication between >> co-authors >> but of less value to spectators or occasional commentators. > > What he said. Count me in. Github is a great system for many kinds of tasks, but they haven't really given much thought to mail notifications. I suspect a combination of a) people working on Github itself not using mail notifications and b) Github's main interest being to bring people to the Web site, rather than providing usable information by email. Regards,   Martin. From nobody Tue Dec 22 16:06:30 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1467D3A133C for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 16:06:29 -0800 (PST) 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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SFHYM4HOYK4K for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 16:06:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qk1-x72e.google.com (mail-qk1-x72e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72e]) (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 F28433A1337 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 16:06:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qk1-x72e.google.com with SMTP id d14so13577898qkc.13 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 16:06:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language; bh=EuqZaauSFVaK586Y/umlEN1imOnfd5wsE7+dm/r1X9k=; b=XXQ8vDCApXaXT/4X4Gy7srOF0XQG5Rzo3ZUoqO03I4KBOwWf2f7RrZHDOgnnin4KIM WbQC+cJe69wNaiaKeNyLgxC+2EkkiwPUHVqstEVWiWVZ0jw72ohEkiUdh67UjEfwo65z ltFCFkYoiymb+g8Ph6B04xBy+E131R8LKU57qB9DV+crDsY0YH1PlS9bStkwmOcOLXaA L+sBYgyo63TSNAg1pZwAtw2DSk+01G4up2zVfqSKWM8U+/Eqzb33kEcqB0QuzypBaJSN jpZtbylV6zJGchRgaNEkwB02JcnYFTp37w8rRQPwl5wJ8sVp2DGMw/AwEBqml5QLA+XY rgGA== 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; bh=EuqZaauSFVaK586Y/umlEN1imOnfd5wsE7+dm/r1X9k=; b=O9OZpvyu4Vu9UTCJK9yVnkJZPyj5r62OwdQSYYRl1tc9a/mbg4rkOQdHn+fPQDT9ZU FfcoJKXMLoON83zR8pI+TjzG5OAm63ZKHmUnT/pBKyZD1D6lG2izSKtQ45uSA+aNS8e4 JuyIK2LmmeJ7lIPxiBljT37Y4jogUZ8kFW/MghHjg5mZhn87qJYgO0orHeTl739Ch058 A8I71+C2M99jxrJ3hxiKcq82cnlTDMrGMrSUBPZA8LDkvdB/wRYL7eJqMPAZFDSIDiwf 8dcQIdJBGF1AKGT88xD5VbJxzYCtuL7g8Qa4WCOmf3t5PBHrvX719QTuzWpI1iDip+uG nutQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530VnK7XvSg2Ca/eIplZyos6c6Wl3gylOAz5Mpj2V1Owb1O5rgtn 7lYlMqqlvAeMvp5CGb3D5sTvkOEa7qmpPHbq X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwalr5RPp6I9949aI9gioVW0cMOpm4mi2X4pYWrdlA4skKy2wwiKds+HqlSa3aZgbLs2IAymA== X-Received: by 2002:a37:a158:: with SMTP id k85mr24338766qke.432.1608681984254; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 16:06:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.23] (pool-108-28-189-254.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [108.28.189.254]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j30sm14224733qtl.43.2020.12.22.16.06.23 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 22 Dec 2020 16:06:23 -0800 (PST) To: rfced-future@iab.org References: <99E11840-6AEB-46B5-A436-510B5FB7133E@cisco.com> <2416DA61-9442-4124-A66F-F66E23FE053D@mnot.net> From: Michael StJohns Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 19:06:21 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------A4E73F54740EB4BFE9AE41F3" Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 12: Consensus check on baseline text X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 00:06:29 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------A4E73F54740EB4BFE9AE41F3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In line in reply to both Mark and Eric On 12/22/2020 6:14 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 7:59 PM Mark Nottingham > wrote: > > I like RFC Series Expert!  Comment below. > > > On 18 Dec 2020, at 8:42 pm, Eliot Lear > > wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > > > In the last interim, we agreed that the following text should be > the starting point for text to describe the role of the RS[EA].  > Could you please state concerns about this text as a starting > point no later than 8 January 2020?  You can also find it in GH > here.   Feel free to create PRs, but please discuss them on list. > > > > Eliot > > Role of the RFC Series Editor > > > > > > Draft! Please submit PRs, but discuss on list. > > > > This person will be a senior professional with deep knowledge of > technical publishing. > > I'm not sure what 'senior' means in this context - in respect to > whom are they 'senior'? > > 'experienced' might be more appropriate. > Completely different axes.      I can have a very experienced junior IT guy whose remit (job, domain, field of responsibility) is very narrow, while I can have an newly promoted senior VP who has been moved from managing manufacturing for a product line to managing logistics for the entire company - e.g. very broad remit, but lacking domain specific experience. In English, senior can mean both "superior to someone junior" and "well established in the profession". Senior in this case is "well established in the profession (and other publication experts would say that of them), with broad experience and an ability to adapt to our specific domain quickly" > > Now that I've had a chance to review this text I find it rather less > illuminating than I had hoped. > > "deep knowledge of technical publishing" is a pretty vague term. I'd > need to understand in rather more detail what knowledge people expect > someone to have here before I would be able to conclude that this was > correct or incorrect. Could someone who is in favor of this text > perhaps provide some clarity here? This is just getting in to bikeshedding I think?   For reference purposes let's just say that RFC8729 section 3.1 is the text I would cut and paste here - perhaps with some slight tweeks. > /The RFC Editor is an expert technical editor and series editor, > acting to support the mission of the//RFC Series. As such, the RFC > Editor is the implementer handling the editorial management of the > //RFC Series, in accordance with the de//fi//ned processes. In > addition, the RFC Editor is expected to//be the expert and prime mover > in discussions about policies for editing, publishing, and //archiving > RFCs./ E.g. "Expert technical editor and series editor skills" in publication with broad and deep knowledge related to production, "editing, publishing and archival" of a technical document series or related publication streams. Or more concisely:  "Deep knowledge of technical publishing". Alternately, and much more detailed and more appropriate to an SOW- RFC8728 section 2.1.6 (condensed): 1. Strategic leadership and management experience fulfilling the requirements outlined in thisdocument, the many aspects of this role, and the coordination of the overall RFC Editorprocess. 2. Good understanding of the English language and technical terminology related to the Internet. 3. Good communication skills. 4. Experience with editorial processes. 5. Ability to develop strong understanding of the IETF and RFC process. 6. The ability to work effectively in a multi-actor environment 7. Demonstrated experience in strategic planning and the management of entire operations. Later, Mike > > -Ekr > > > > The RSE will operate by providing expert advice to the RSAWG, > and if requested, to the RPC, on any relevant matters. The value > this individual provides is an understanding of the process of > technical publishing. They expected to learn how the process is > applied in the RFC series. They will be asked to produce regular > reviews of the process and identify problems and opportunities for > improvement. There are also opportunities to spontaneously learn > of these problems, likely the result of interactions with > day-to-day operations. The person may be requested to draft documents > > > > For example, the RSE might be consulted about proposed changes > to the style guide, RFC formatting in general, web presence, > copyright matters, or archiving policy, or might of their own > initiative suggest such changes to the RSAWG. > > > > The RSE is expected to attend all RSAWG meetings, and to have an > ongoing working relationship with the RPC and tooling team. > > > > -- > > Rfced-future mailing list > > Rfced-future@iab.org > > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future > > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ > > -- > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future > > > --------------A4E73F54740EB4BFE9AE41F3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In line in reply to both Mark and Eric

On 12/22/2020 6:14 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:


On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 7:59 PM Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
I like RFC Series Expert!  Comment below.

> On 18 Dec 2020, at 8:42 pm, Eliot Lear <lear=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> In the last interim, we agreed that the following text should be the starting point for text to describe the role of the RS[EA].  Could you please state concerns about this text as a starting point no later than 8 January 2020?  You can also find it in GH here.   Feel free to create PRs, but please discuss them on list.
>
> Eliot
> Role of the RFC Series Editor
>
>
> Draft! Please submit PRs, but discuss on list.
>
> This person will be a senior professional with deep knowledge of technical publishing.

I'm not sure what 'senior' means in this context - in respect to whom are they 'senior'?

'experienced' might be more appropriate.

Completely different axes.      I can have a very experienced junior IT guy whose remit (job, domain, field of responsibility) is very narrow, while I can have an newly promoted senior VP who has been moved from managing manufacturing for a product line to managing logistics for the entire company - e.g. very broad remit, but lacking domain specific experience.

In English, senior can mean both "superior to someone junior" and "well established in the profession".

Senior in this case is "well established in the profession (and other publication experts would say that of them), with broad experience and an ability to adapt to our specific domain quickly"



Now that I've had a chance to review this text I find it rather less illuminating than I had hoped.

"deep knowledge of technical publishing" is a pretty vague term. I'd need to understand in rather more detail what knowledge people expect someone to have here before I would be able to conclude that this was correct or incorrect. Could someone who is in favor of this text perhaps provide some clarity here?

This is just getting in to bikeshedding I think?   For reference purposes let's just say that RFC8729 section 3.1 is the text I would cut and paste here - perhaps with some slight tweeks.  

The RFC Editor is an expert technical editor and series editor, acting to support the mission of theRFC Series. As such, the RFC Editor is the implementer handling the editorial management of the RFC Series, in accordance with the defined processes. In addition, the RFC Editor is expected to be the expert and prime mover in discussions about policies for editing, publishing, and archiving RFCs.

E.g. "Expert technical editor and series editor skills" in publication with broad and deep knowledge related to production, "editing, publishing and archival" of a technical document series or related publication streams.

Or more concisely:  "Deep knowledge of technical publishing".

Alternately, and much more detailed and more appropriate to an SOW- RFC8728 section 2.1.6 (condensed): 

  1. Strategic leadership and management experience fulfilling the requirements outlined in this document, the many aspects of this role, and the coordination of the overall RFC Editor process. 
  2. Good understanding of the English language and technical terminology related to the Internet. 
  3. Good communication skills. 
  4. Experience with editorial processes. 
  5. Ability to develop strong understanding of the IETF and RFC process. 
  6. The ability to work effectively in a multi-actor environment
  7. Demonstrated experience in strategic planning and the management of entire operations.

Later, Mike



-Ekr

> The RSE will operate by providing expert advice to the RSAWG, and if requested, to the RPC, on any relevant matters. The value this individual provides is an understanding of the process of technical publishing. They expected to learn how the process is applied in the RFC series. They will be asked to produce regular reviews of the process and identify problems and opportunities for improvement. There are also opportunities to spontaneously learn of these problems, likely the result of interactions with day-to-day operations. The person may be requested to draft documents
>
> For example, the RSE might be consulted about proposed changes to the style guide, RFC formatting in general, web presence, copyright matters, or archiving policy, or might of their own initiative suggest such changes to the RSAWG.
>
> The RSE is expected to attend all RSAWG meetings, and to have an ongoing working relationship with the RPC and tooling team.
>
> --
> Rfced-future mailing list
> Rfced-future@iab.org
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

--
Rfced-future mailing list
Rfced-future@iab.org
https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future


--------------A4E73F54740EB4BFE9AE41F3-- From nobody Tue Dec 22 16:33:35 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 405693A136F for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 16:33:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.798 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.798 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_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=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 (2048-bit key) header.d=lowentropy.net header.b=IQfO11C1; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=KI0z3Fqd 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 MXHV3eemjb20 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 16:33:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C037A3A136B for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 16:33:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E651A5C00CF for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 19:33:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from imap10 ([10.202.2.60]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 22 Dec 2020 19:33:31 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lowentropy.net; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type; s=fm1; bh=3Ok4x7VTSNiazLhldcMfK9Pajk2vPG3 DnkXB8H+dqkg=; b=IQfO11C1wqrAZ/WjDXHyLUafE4Ur0hHrD9mTcxFrORRcuwl x5YV0vT3tmTzFzw0D+mbONgDgspb9cQgP+iGuSpiv4k9zOy39CQyShY0WJjq4Xo5 x4zWYnzs7v37cOyaDCpMFZ6JzH+CTzB1pmBLVlb+SA2ZngelJX3z5N4xcXspyTPK FC9C0ITPVu5y4jF1qs4Jjhv6qAZkrzyz1KUvQyJLNsNSTQnNVFXHJs3SdfdvUnH2 nPsrCD4tDXQ2bytxFyvulyrgM6wbTAsIRCfoZKFdYo7jlaTYxRCnRKY+FVgrghgE u4Ojm2wG/luT7cUdZbmyzv+rHxqpKj7RzI2iS+g== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=3Ok4x7 VTSNiazLhldcMfK9Pajk2vPG3DnkXB8H+dqkg=; b=KI0z3FqdclekkD3Se5nHst keYnbZsxieUL7Od9F0VU++PtM2pfQLgcmZQleNiTrizsX6OgsbRCucw10eSXbEuR Q2025Jqz2WwPdweyDRpSOJwfW7hcGuO9n7xzAL9wn2ATLz8ptOnip63yLaZANCr4 bUI0tyu3FlZmAu/rncj6ASNo6KQn7uDF+tFym1TgNhPdRNCAdYi/l1TrYQKLaH2W LaDmxGyFoYDbe+pdu4KNC+rNeBHWI3FSg79MyMmpQmqYBMaX+UcYU5Mg2UMtSrl7 MGV7E4QnPOt29LzL2r4xv9SIvCMX0pkdbWqoDSZPhvzsTjOzirqYVqWAM5KUmIxg == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrvddthedgvdegucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsehttd ertderredtnecuhfhrohhmpedfofgrrhhtihhnucfvhhhomhhsohhnfdcuoehmtheslhho figvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeekteeuieektdekleefke evhfekffevvdevgfekgfeluefgvdejjeegffeigedtjeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigv pedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmtheslhhofigvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvg ht X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 76B43200B5; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 19:33:31 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.1-61-gb52c239-fm-20201210.001-gb52c2396 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <99E11840-6AEB-46B5-A436-510B5FB7133E@cisco.com> <2416DA61-9442-4124-A66F-F66E23FE053D@mnot.net> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 11:33:12 +1100 From: "Martin Thomson" To: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Type: text/plain Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 12: Consensus check on baseline text X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 00:33:34 -0000 On Wed, Dec 23, 2020, at 11:06, Michael StJohns wrote: > Senior in this case is "well established in the profession (and other > publication experts would say that of them), with broad experience and > an ability to adapt to our specific domain quickly" Maybe we should instead say "(broad) experience with and (extensive) expertise in" then. Though I would avoid including qualifiers here, particularly subjective ones. Aside: If this were a job description, those qualifiers might drive away certain perfectly qualified candidates. This is based on the inverse of the Dunning-Kruger effect, which I'm told by our recruiters has a disproportionate affect in discouraging applications from certain groups with minority representation in our industry. > Alternately, and much more detailed and more appropriate to an SOW- > RFC8728 section 2.1.6 (condensed): > > 1. Strategic leadership and management experience fulfilling the > requirements outlined in this document, the many aspects of this role, > and the coordination of the overall RFC Editor process. > 2. Good understanding of the English language and technical > terminology related to the Internet. > 3. Good communication skills. > 4. Experience with editorial processes. > 5. Ability to develop strong understanding of the IETF and RFC > process. > 6. The ability to work effectively in a multi-actor environment > 7. Demonstrated experience in strategic planning and the management of > entire operations. Leaving aside the first, which is either self-referential or refers to other points made in that document, I am pretty confident that most of the people participating on this list would meet these criteria. As would a fairly large slice of the IETF community. Besides, I think that we've tried to shave the scope of the role a little, so I would specifically exclude 1 and 7. Aside from the general "works well with others" criteria (2, 3, 5, 6), what we are looking for is just one thing that is truly unique: "experience and expertise in the field of technical publishing". Maybe that's just a rephrasing of wording Eliot proposed, but if we're debating that handful of words at length, this is my contribution :) From nobody Tue Dec 22 18:30:23 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D5D23A02BB for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 18:30:22 -0800 (PST) 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-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 yhKUQzE6PZxj for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 18:30:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pl1-x631.google.com (mail-pl1-x631.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::631]) (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 D407C3A017E for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 18:30:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pl1-x631.google.com with SMTP id 4so8394561plk.5 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 18:30:20 -0800 (PST) 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=CQx1ytMXaTvipGc4HrQq9kEVhWmgWI6lUHkKpLrfp64=; b=boET6Dr+t5JueG2bMBFFGy5n/756gaoG7FBgFvuMpPgILBDFifkJ4f8+SyRcVdcXtn lvovbm6XUrdgJ4+1jaK5ZF3tvpK03eIYpU+5bF+VrWWDZmqV9GVSDpyda8S0+oX/l8Ey 2Mysbvb/8l+V++3Soqs1tMeAEq4hU5p5nkMwvZdaC6TKgAa3MvvUBimBpcxBqXRJdFSk 1zFEg1Q7U5aafXfcd5jbJzKACAZwwmQ7VZ8bOm9FeYjkzqgQxuMoqhYut/O1pjuMSV/a /0YegpPexBt3eGuxjnxsYHiwgyMplZvN9+NWFiF5+5RB/J5zDMn1WSkNDATHQA/hEX4d 2y7A== 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=CQx1ytMXaTvipGc4HrQq9kEVhWmgWI6lUHkKpLrfp64=; b=eJj5/Y88QJ45sPWVgA4ghKcQ0QORzuRLlCGuMprVOoN0pJfv+2RXpbQSNkzpn+nA7F NyKfq0n1rfLa5E2N3+FjLQlFBal0GUFzpmSr2k/ZGxPmEti5xq7yXOJtgPXQy15OaBlV Y5T+swC/F9p0JgYQL8uHJw6kw3N9nBSQVoUvXsnPnd1/wPT6QK98uB7iq+D44lHdJrGR L5d7+4FAlO9/GkYm2n5aRwBh4qEdQ/GZcP89g2/q5FY4CJMLIDPV+qqgq1R8X10SKdnF EWo7XHv/3wcw43Tsx3i+lqurZHS7ryO6SRQztm1FP892MLFh+fKcAzl7xgGy+YYR3znS SRvA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533DbWICluwwwwWLmOxDnCzSOFY+2t741jg7VzURadd1gedqW8sL mWIe/2Oe/o9bBqmGlYHAhhqzPtXuI5JioQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxYBZeErtmSZr1syh81En+cbhT4X+YXt/lbpJ082M8q0yaLVH+CNw+ClU5y81s6NOrhML/X/Q== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:cb8d:: with SMTP id a13mr24225502pju.155.1608690619881; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 18:30:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.131.28]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v10sm20174824pjr.47.2020.12.22.18.30.17 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 22 Dec 2020 18:30:18 -0800 (PST) To: Martin Thomson , rfced-future@iab.org References: <99E11840-6AEB-46B5-A436-510B5FB7133E@cisco.com> <2416DA61-9442-4124-A66F-F66E23FE053D@mnot.net> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: <75288d19-0210-684c-e1fe-2156132472b1@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:30:13 +1300 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: [Rfced-future] Issue 12: Consensus check on baseline text X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 02:30:22 -0000 On 23-Dec-20 13:33, Martin Thomson wrote: > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020, at 11:06, Michael StJohns wrote: >> Senior in this case is "well established in the profession (and other >> publication experts would say that of them), with broad experience and >> an ability to adapt to our specific domain quickly" > > Maybe we should instead say "(broad) experience with and (extensive) expertise in" then. Though I would avoid including qualifiers here, particularly subjective ones. We can take those qualifiers out of a formal job description, but that's not what we're writing right now. But I must confess that I was surprised by ekr's question. What we learned from hiring a person with deep knowledge of technical editing was that she knew a lot of stuff that we didn't know, and that she could see with more clarity than we did what we were doing that needed to change. A person with less knowledge of technical publishing couldn't do that. I don't know how to say that in more precise terms than "deep knowledge". Brian > > Aside: If this were a job description, those qualifiers might drive away certain perfectly qualified candidates. This is based on the inverse of the Dunning-Kruger effect, which I'm told by our recruiters has a disproportionate affect in discouraging applications from certain groups with minority representation in our industry. > >> Alternately, and much more detailed and more appropriate to an SOW- >> RFC8728 section 2.1.6 (condensed): >> >> 1. Strategic leadership and management experience fulfilling the >> requirements outlined in this document, the many aspects of this role, >> and the coordination of the overall RFC Editor process. >> 2. Good understanding of the English language and technical >> terminology related to the Internet. >> 3. Good communication skills. >> 4. Experience with editorial processes. >> 5. Ability to develop strong understanding of the IETF and RFC >> process. >> 6. The ability to work effectively in a multi-actor environment >> 7. Demonstrated experience in strategic planning and the management of >> entire operations. > > Leaving aside the first, which is either self-referential or refers to other points made in that document, I am pretty confident that most of the people participating on this list would meet these criteria. As would a fairly large slice of the IETF community. > > Besides, I think that we've tried to shave the scope of the role a little, so I would specifically exclude 1 and 7. Aside from the general "works well with others" criteria (2, 3, 5, 6), what we are looking for is just one thing that is truly unique: "experience and expertise in the field of technical publishing". > > Maybe that's just a rephrasing of wording Eliot proposed, but if we're debating that handful of words at length, this is my contribution :) > From nobody Wed Dec 23 08:36:18 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 504F73A0C1C for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 08:36:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 XsdQuM0-aXGW for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 08:36:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B85DE3A0C16 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 08:36:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3332; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1608741375; x=1609950975; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=IALWQLjkslJkfnUkbmykqlBrMhJOA5wq6OVmMsbayho=; b=V/mGbbexwVahLYfGF4/KducwttG4Q0VGY5tHFYXAaJhPO+tLhPmdWfwW Of7PItcnpW8qnbL93kfJywRXAcPfNOoBZ8WEtZoF3Gofo4v3jXItA0sMv yWvTZFHciVwyGlteMdHJQa3g+GMgs17j/ABNvfkAxrvqxd+IdahxKLXb3 o=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AXAAC5ceNflxbLJq1iHAEBAQEBAQcBARIBAQQEAQGBf?= =?us-ascii?q?AYBAQsBg3cBIBKEbYkEiCaUG4YgFIFoBAcBAQEKAwEBLwQBAYRKAoFzJjUID?= =?us-ascii?q?gIDAQEBAwIDAQEBAQUBAQECAQYEFAEBAQEBAQEBhkKFdAEEASNLCwULCwQBK?= =?us-ascii?q?A4HAgJXBoM5AYJmILERdoEyhViEZRCBOAGBUotWQYIAgTgcglY+g3cJfYJZN?= =?us-ascii?q?IIsBIFUcoFVAm6dNpwogwCDJ4E3lnoDH5MGj0qxUINuAgQGBQIWgVgBNYFZM?= =?us-ascii?q?xoIGxVlAYI/PRIZDY47HY4TQANnAgYBCQEBAwmJagEB?= X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.78,441,1599523200"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="32133816" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 23 Dec 2020 16:35:51 +0000 Received: from [10.61.199.185] ([10.61.199.185]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 0BNGZo12007110 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 23 Dec 2020 16:35:51 GMT From: Eliot Lear Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_76839013-0385-4975-BB36-34A09B979B53"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 17:35:50 +0100 In-Reply-To: Cc: "rfced-future@iab.org" , Eric Rescorla , "Joel M. Halpern" , Mark Nottingham To: Brian E Carpenter References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <52205b0b-979e-e278-9511-e5853f9c4e9c@joelhalpern.com> <0FC1D91B-ADBD-43E0-9437-2DE9B85B4EC4@cisco.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.199.185, [10.61.199.185] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-4.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Consensus check on Issue 13: Is decision making in the strategic body open to all? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 16:36:17 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_76839013-0385-4975-BB36-34A09B979B53 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0F04BC96-2F7C-4DA6-8E4C-5D25F18B2BA9" --Apple-Mail=_0F04BC96-2F7C-4DA6-8E4C-5D25F18B2BA9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi Brian, Russ, Joel, Mark, EKR, and everyone: Let me try again, taking into account the last few exchanges: > All strategic body meetings are open to the public, all discussions of = issues take place on open mailing lists, and anyone is welcome to = comment / discuss. The strategic body may decide to use additional = forms of communication and tooling that are consistent with IETF working = group practices [RFC2418,RFC8744]. How=E2=80=99s that? This will permit what I expect would be a step by = step approach in terms of how tools like Git are adopted; and the group = can decide, again, how to evolve their use of tooling based on = operational experience. Eliot --Apple-Mail=_0F04BC96-2F7C-4DA6-8E4C-5D25F18B2BA9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Hi = Brian, Russ, Joel, Mark, EKR, and everyone:

Let me try again, taking into account = the last few exchanges:

All = strategic body meetings are open to the public, all discussions of = issues take place on open mailing lists, and anyone is welcome to = comment / discuss.  The strategic body may decide to use = additional forms of communication and tooling that are consistent with = IETF working group practices [RFC2418,RFC8744].

How=E2=80=99s that?  This will = permit what I expect would be a step by step approach in terms of how = tools like Git are adopted; and the group can decide, again, how to = evolve their use of tooling based on operational experience.

Eliot

= --Apple-Mail=_0F04BC96-2F7C-4DA6-8E4C-5D25F18B2BA9-- --Apple-Mail=_76839013-0385-4975-BB36-34A09B979B53 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAl/jceYACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejNiGQgAvCvMJYCzG670Gb3ytwO5xYNsU/L8EvHom/yyGV30fsO97AkgCRS2Wxre Y33/NrES9N+L3op4xV6I/I9U+FFPbj6dterXKg56YnBCM0ZX5b6+P4U9Ym1Td7c8 m5q6KJfLy2b3IifNr6mR3mTdpqpa20IMkUu9D5s72bBCPH8h2S9Ay5CBHnt4yD3f iFRGQAfwAY/nh/C1f0VDDC2x0csHmyozobTmhPywNinTSbBaa3SvsJ4vzeyLtVxx 358uOMHQhwv7G/YylDLcp7c2oFxGmR5mf3CFbA1ZypkOZN5AEt/4/JhBcV2S6Msn u3XfoI3DKHTN5SzVkVRPI76zTfSP9g== =C6pB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_76839013-0385-4975-BB36-34A09B979B53-- From nobody Wed Dec 23 09:14:54 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 889D73A0EA6 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 09:14:46 -0800 (PST) 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 n4rH2TIzqdCs for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 09:14:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80CB33A0E99 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 09:14:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 071CB300BCF for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 12:14:42 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id sQKvndrEaXt9 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 12:14:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (pool-141-156-161-153.washdc.fios.verizon.net [141.156.161.153]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 10B15300ADC; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 12:14:38 -0500 (EST) From: Russ Housley Message-Id: <199AE760-CCCB-4F67-98B2-3F85A91450FE@vigilsec.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D82E9845-0666-4464-B845-1C3708385559"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.17\)) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 12:14:40 -0500 In-Reply-To: Cc: Brian Carpenter , "rfced-future@iab.org" , Eric Rescorla , Joel Halpern , Mark Nottingham To: Eliot Lear References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <52205b0b-979e-e278-9511-e5853f9c4e9c@joelhalpern.com> <0FC1D91B-ADBD-43E0-9437-2DE9B85B4EC4@cisco.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.17) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Consensus check on Issue 13: Is decision making in the strategic body open to all? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 17:14:53 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_D82E9845-0666-4464-B845-1C3708385559 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3EC64E19-7A8D-4C26-8227-3387C1A9AB78" --Apple-Mail=_3EC64E19-7A8D-4C26-8227-3387C1A9AB78 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 >=20 > Hi Brian, Russ, Joel, Mark, EKR, and everyone: >=20 > Let me try again, taking into account the last few exchanges: >=20 >> All strategic body meetings are open to the public, all discussions = of issues take place on open mailing lists, and anyone is welcome to = comment / discuss. The strategic body may decide to use additional = forms of communication and tooling that are consistent with IETF working = group practices [RFC2418,RFC8744]. >=20 > How=E2=80=99s that? This will permit what I expect would be a step by = step approach in terms of how tools like Git are adopted; and the group = can decide, again, how to evolve their use of tooling based on = operational experience. Good enough for me. Russ --Apple-Mail=_3EC64E19-7A8D-4C26-8227-3387C1A9AB78 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8

Hi Brian, Russ, Joel, Mark, EKR, and everyone:

Let me try again, taking = into account the last few exchanges:

All strategic body meetings are open to the = public, all discussions of issues take place on open mailing lists, and = anyone is welcome to comment / discuss.  The strategic body may decide = to use additional forms of communication and tooling that are consistent = with IETF working group practices = [RFC2418,RFC8744].

How=E2=80=99s that?  This will permit what I = expect would be a step by step approach in terms of how tools like Git = are adopted; and the group can decide, again, how to evolve their use of = tooling based on operational = experience.
Good enough for = me.

Russ
= --Apple-Mail=_3EC64E19-7A8D-4C26-8227-3387C1A9AB78-- --Apple-Mail=_D82E9845-0666-4464-B845-1C3708385559 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iF0EARECAB0WIQRJuTEKFXbtfFQz5huK5O7Q9ZwRywUCX+N7AAAKCRCK5O7Q9ZwR yyh6AKDufgCsFiSUp7R37Aoy/WsnjKnTMwCeJDOB4B5bbcaRs9FEROHQvzym8I4= =iFXv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_D82E9845-0666-4464-B845-1C3708385559-- From nobody Wed Dec 23 09:53:13 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7A423A005C for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 09:53:10 -0800 (PST) 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=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 ZXCLyseuKTK3 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 09:53:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (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 456BE3A0039 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 09:53:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D1LQr079Cz1pFR3; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 09:53:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1608745988; bh=MNSLAcF+nqojYiQd1aJndGggttE9L8oCnsud636U6lY=; h=Date:Subject:In-Reply-To:From:To:Cc:From; b=Iwl37tiBJpNO/SCaGdnx19NZ0oPmqviU0bLEPGc5vyIMkwdHRpoTqNUQpB44HEqI1 3+spn2qoLe6nccrpc9vHTb/OUjHC8AhX5tLqg5qOYlVVtOObBxDi9tVHksGQWQeQ6l 3e3vRuB6TnOb45Hxr/YP23T0B/x5uTMXiYDFsHEA= X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.135.88] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4D1LQp244Cz1pFQw; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 09:53:05 -0800 (PST) SavedFromEmail: jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 12:53:03 -0500 In-Reply-To: <199AE760-CCCB-4F67-98B2-3F85A91450FE@vigilsec.com> Importance: normal From: "jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com" To: Russ Housley , Eliot Lear Cc: "rfced-future@iab.org" , Mark Nottingham , Eric Rescorla , Joel Halpern MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--_com.samsung.android.email_84633631729140" Message-Id: <20201223175309.456BE3A0039@ietfa.amsl.com> Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Consensus check on Issue 13: Is decision making in the strategic body open to all? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 17:53:11 -0000 ----_com.samsung.android.email_84633631729140 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 V29ya3MgZm9yIG1lLllvdXJzLEpvZWxTZW50IHZpYSB0aGUgU2Ftc3VuZyBHYWxheHkgUzcsIGFu IEFUJlQgNEcgTFRFIHNtYXJ0cGhvbmUKLS0tLS0tLS0gT3JpZ2luYWwgbWVzc2FnZSAtLS0tLS0t LUZyb206IFJ1c3MgSG91c2xleSA8aG91c2xleUB2aWdpbHNlYy5jb20+IERhdGU6IDEyLzIzLzIw ICAxMjoxNSAgKEdNVC0wNTowMCkgVG86IEVsaW90IExlYXIgPGxlYXJAY2lzY28uY29tPiBDYzog cmZjZWQtZnV0dXJlQGlhYi5vcmcsIE1hcmsgTm90dGluZ2hhbSA8bW5vdEBtbm90Lm5ldD4sIEVy aWMgUmVzY29ybGEgPGVrckBydGZtLmNvbT4sIEpvZWwgSGFscGVybiA8am1oQGpvZWxoYWxwZXJu LmNvbT4gU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFtSZmNlZC1mdXR1cmVdIENvbnNlbnN1cyBjaGVjayBvbiBJc3N1 ZSAxMzogSXMgZGVjaXNpb24gbWFraW5nIGluIHRoZSBzdHJhdGVnaWMgYm9keSBvcGVuIHRvIGFs bD8gSGkgQnJpYW4sIFJ1c3MsIEpvZWwsIE1hcmssIEVLUiwgYW5kIGV2ZXJ5b25lOkxldCBtZSB0 cnkgYWdhaW4sIHRha2luZyBpbnRvIGFjY291bnQgdGhlIGxhc3QgZmV3IGV4Y2hhbmdlczpBbGwg c3RyYXRlZ2ljIGJvZHkgbWVldGluZ3MgYXJlIG9wZW4gdG8gdGhlIHB1YmxpYywgYWxsIGRpc2N1 c3Npb25zIG9mIGlzc3VlcyB0YWtlIHBsYWNlIG9uIG9wZW4gbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0cywgYW5kIGFu eW9uZSBpcyB3ZWxjb21lIHRvIGNvbW1lbnQgLyBkaXNjdXNzLiDCoFRoZcKgc3RyYXRlZ2ljIGJv ZHkgbWF5IGRlY2lkZSB0byB1c2UgYWRkaXRpb25hbCBmb3JtcyBvZiBjb21tdW5pY2F0aW9uIGFu ZCB0b29saW5nIHRoYXQgYXJlIGNvbnNpc3RlbnQgd2l0aCBJRVRGIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAgcHJh Y3RpY2VzIFtSRkMyNDE4LFJGQzg3NDRdLkhvd+KAmXMgdGhhdD8gwqBUaGlzIHdpbGwgcGVybWl0 IHdoYXQgSSBleHBlY3Qgd291bGQgYmUgYSBzdGVwIGJ5IHN0ZXAgYXBwcm9hY2ggaW4gdGVybXMg b2YgaG93IHRvb2xzIGxpa2UgR2l0IGFyZSBhZG9wdGVkOyBhbmQgdGhlIGdyb3VwIGNhbiBkZWNp ZGUsIGFnYWluLCBob3cgdG8gZXZvbHZlIHRoZWlyIHVzZSBvZiB0b29saW5nIGJhc2VkIG9uIG9w ZXJhdGlvbmFsIGV4cGVyaWVuY2UuR29vZCBlbm91Z2ggZm9yIG1lLlJ1c3M= ----_com.samsung.android.email_84633631729140 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWw+PGhlYWQ+PG1ldGEgaHR0cC1lcXVpdj0iQ29udGVudC1UeXBlIiBjb250ZW50PSJ0ZXh0 L2h0bWw7IGNoYXJzZXQ9VVRGLTgiPjwvaGVhZD48Ym9keSBkaXI9ImF1dG8iPjxkaXYgZGlyPSJh dXRvIj5Xb3JrcyBmb3IgbWUuPC9kaXY+PGRpdiBkaXI9ImF1dG8iPllvdXJzLDwvZGl2PjxkaXYg ZGlyPSJhdXRvIj5Kb2VsPC9kaXY+PGRpdiBkaXI9ImF1dG8iPjxicj48L2Rpdj48ZGl2IGRpcj0i YXV0byI+PGJyPjwvZGl2PjxkaXYgZGlyPSJhdXRvIj48YnI+PC9kaXY+PGRpdiBpZD0iY29tcG9z ZXJfc2lnbmF0dXJlIiBkaXI9ImF1dG8iPjxkaXYgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZTo4NSU7Y29sb3I6 IzU3NTc1NyIgZGlyPSJhdXRvIj5TZW50IHZpYSB0aGUgU2Ftc3VuZyBHYWxheHkgUzcsIGFuIEFU JmFtcDtUIDRHIExURSBzbWFydHBob25lPC9kaXY+PC9kaXY+PGRpdiBkaXI9ImF1dG8iPjxicj48 L2Rpdj48ZGl2Pjxicj48L2Rpdj48ZGl2IGFsaWduPSJsZWZ0IiBkaXI9ImF1dG8iIHN0eWxlPSJm b250LXNpemU6MTAwJTtjb2xvcjojMDAwMDAwIj48ZGl2Pi0tLS0tLS0tIE9yaWdpbmFsIG1lc3Nh Z2UgLS0tLS0tLS08L2Rpdj48ZGl2PkZyb206IFJ1c3MgSG91c2xleSAmbHQ7aG91c2xleUB2aWdp bHNlYy5jb20mZ3Q7IDwvZGl2PjxkaXY+RGF0ZTogMTIvMjMvMjAgIDEyOjE1ICAoR01ULTA1OjAw KSA8L2Rpdj48ZGl2PlRvOiBFbGlvdCBMZWFyICZsdDtsZWFyQGNpc2NvLmNvbSZndDsgPC9kaXY+ PGRpdj5DYzogcmZjZWQtZnV0dXJlQGlhYi5vcmcsIE1hcmsgTm90dGluZ2hhbSAmbHQ7bW5vdEBt bm90Lm5ldCZndDssIEVyaWMgUmVzY29ybGEgJmx0O2VrckBydGZtLmNvbSZndDssIEpvZWwgSGFs cGVybiAmbHQ7am1oQGpvZWxoYWxwZXJuLmNvbSZndDsgPC9kaXY+PGRpdj5TdWJqZWN0OiBSZTog W1JmY2VkLWZ1dHVyZV0gQ29uc2Vuc3VzIGNoZWNrIG9uIElzc3VlIDEzOiBJcyBkZWNpc2lvbiBt YWtpbmcgaW4gdGhlIHN0cmF0ZWdpYyBib2R5IG9wZW4gdG8gYWxsPyA8L2Rpdj48ZGl2Pjxicj48 L2Rpdj48L2Rpdj48ZGl2PjxibG9ja3F1b3RlIGNsYXNzPSIiIHR5cGU9ImNpdGUiPjxkaXYgY2xh c3M9InByb3RlY3RlZC1wYXJ0Ij48YnIgY2xhc3M9IiI+PGRpdiBjbGFzcz0icHJvdGVjdGVkLWNv bnRlbnQiPjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IiIgc3R5bGU9IndvcmQtd3JhcDogYnJlYWstd29yZDsgLXdlYmtp dC1uYnNwLW1vZGU6IHNwYWNlOyBsaW5lLWJyZWFrOiBhZnRlci13aGl0ZS1zcGFjZTsiPkhpIEJy aWFuLCBSdXNzLCBKb2VsLCBNYXJrLCBFS1IsIGFuZCBldmVyeW9uZTo8ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSIiPjxi ciBjbGFzcz0iIj48L2Rpdj48ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSIiPkxldCBtZSB0cnkgYWdhaW4sIHRha2luZyBp bnRvIGFjY291bnQgdGhlIGxhc3QgZmV3IGV4Y2hhbmdlczo8L2Rpdj48ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSIiPjxi ciBjbGFzcz0iIj48L2Rpdj48ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSIiPjxibG9ja3F1b3RlIGNsYXNzPSIiIHR5cGU9 ImNpdGUiPjxjb2RlIGNsYXNzPSIiPkFsbCBzdHJhdGVnaWMgYm9keSBtZWV0aW5ncyBhcmUgb3Bl biB0byB0aGUgcHVibGljLCBhbGwgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbnMgb2YgaXNzdWVzIHRha2UgcGxhY2Ugb24g b3BlbiBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3RzLCBhbmQgYW55b25lIGlzIHdlbGNvbWUgdG8gY29tbWVudCAvIGRp c2N1c3MuICZuYnNwO1RoZSZuYnNwOzwvY29kZT48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IG1v bm9zcGFjZTsiIGNsYXNzPSIiPnN0cmF0ZWdpYyBib2R5IG1heSBkZWNpZGUgdG8gdXNlIGFkZGl0 aW9uYWwgZm9ybXMgb2YgY29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgdG9vbGluZyB0aGF0IGFyZSBjb25zaXN0 ZW50IHdpdGggSUVURiB3b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwIHByYWN0aWNlcyBbUkZDMjQxOCxSRkM4NzQ0XS48 L3NwYW4+PC9ibG9ja3F1b3RlPjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IiI+PGJyIGNsYXNzPSIiPjwvZGl2Pkhvd+KA mXMgdGhhdD8gJm5ic3A7VGhpcyB3aWxsIHBlcm1pdCB3aGF0IEkgZXhwZWN0IHdvdWxkIGJlIGEg c3RlcCBieSBzdGVwIGFwcHJvYWNoIGluIHRlcm1zIG9mIGhvdyB0b29scyBsaWtlIEdpdCBhcmUg YWRvcHRlZDsgYW5kIHRoZSBncm91cCBjYW4gZGVjaWRlLCBhZ2FpbiwgaG93IHRvIGV2b2x2ZSB0 aGVpciB1c2Ugb2YgdG9vbGluZyBiYXNlZCBvbiBvcGVyYXRpb25hbCBleHBlcmllbmNlLjwvZGl2 PjwvZGl2PjwvZGl2PjwvZGl2PjwvYmxvY2txdW90ZT5Hb29kIGVub3VnaCBmb3IgbWUuPC9kaXY+ PGRpdj48YnIgY2xhc3M9IiI+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj5SdXNzPC9kaXY+PC9ib2R5PjwvaHRtbD4= ----_com.samsung.android.email_84633631729140-- From nobody Wed Dec 23 10:35:10 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 433E63A0489 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 10:35:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EscHTwvWeSNP for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 10:35:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lf1-x132.google.com (mail-lf1-x132.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::132]) (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 9A3993A0475 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 10:35:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf1-x132.google.com with SMTP id h22so32715983lfu.2 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 10:35:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=uCeEd/T/JQ53MoookkBUL54nOB/6w0nMjkc4fpFf3Z4=; b=npbYzSGPEnmf9tPVlWK4i8mgiVqhY55xvhxPltIYH+2ib7xgPrYU4MbNNiWURp8Rxb zSxa9UPd5QKV+IXZWRvxj6t6AkKwetff5VHNOt32DL0UCyO9YNQsmsvaMe6Ya2l+KrFP muheR1biAl78WMXbeG0HZGOsiSXih5YI2Q+rxPF4uRMDlOxZon+8RkduZGYthyN/ySdi lT2PekOkhOK4pZrb139QlrKxwyj2pLFINe9c2w134z5Jny10hOU5moGEJ6quIf0rPpr/ MkTHmKVMnhsOINtAkcvgW9pmL7fpBmxsy7WEFORQF8Xqq0dvAD4gGDfgASoSB4b3Vqsh vSEw== 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=uCeEd/T/JQ53MoookkBUL54nOB/6w0nMjkc4fpFf3Z4=; b=m6Typ8FpYXmc8GH9r0DeQVx/ahBO6NjGxocyl5g0RuuxfjKTbIRbOeoItES0IVQG/y nJmlL/vqUORxUt9xM7bBjORAT4f+CGxhV8i6O3unPsTy9goLxkBm88aGAljVdneFbMtf OK9phfOtk8amtBdDOAId5wsyMrzVmrxSi8T8ZCRu8M0G4HIjFatSRMrHrJ1QO3B1dbU/ z2YLtc3Yh3wv2V+SJHyK9uLLjqvX3XFWXIEQY1SOXkfy79g8fzhth36cdzLPCcyXTNJF c5mId0t6Gogq8QryIGHQUWcYABxprxY0eX+FsZqPO1i+kDPhODN/lJR5ULIA7ytM055n Rd1Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533UhEofh6Xob3ZQ7NcRdFn/Dn/dgODPJVjOq2qjQu39rKH86obA hkoHBBXJ0WneddumMqeKxTt8qkEBLWHPAAwuoaOg6g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzOzi47bo3uTpILtcJnDGwJ8mxAlwaItlql2XrfMBYmqvxoWMq9CImI+09jfJZMMkK5mZDo8VJw5Q/PCOdCMIY= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8106:: with SMTP id d6mr13022919ljg.217.1608748505690; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 10:35:05 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <52205b0b-979e-e278-9511-e5853f9c4e9c@joelhalpern.com> <0FC1D91B-ADBD-43E0-9437-2DE9B85B4EC4@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: From: Eric Rescorla Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 10:34:29 -0800 Message-ID: To: Eliot Lear Cc: Brian E Carpenter , "rfced-future@iab.org" , "Joel M. Halpern" , Mark Nottingham Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000036ff0e05b725f3f6" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Consensus check on Issue 13: Is decision making in the strategic body open to all? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 18:35:09 -0000 --00000000000036ff0e05b725f3f6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 8:36 AM Eliot Lear wrote: > Hi Brian, Russ, Joel, Mark, EKR, and everyone: > > Let me try again, taking into account the last few exchanges: > > All strategic body meetings are open to the public, all discussions of > issues take place on open mailing lists, and anyone is welcome to comment= / > discuss. The strategic body may decide to use additional forms of > communication and tooling that are consistent with IETF working group > practices [RFC2418,RFC8744]. > > > How=E2=80=99s that? This will permit what I expect would be a step by st= ep > approach in terms of how tools like Git are adopted; and the group can > decide, again, how to evolve their use of tooling based on operational > experience. > This seems inconsistent with what both Mark and I were arguing. As I stated earlier, the question of where issue discussion is to take place is one for the WG, not for this document. -Ekr > Eliot > > --00000000000036ff0e05b725f3f6 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 8:36 AM Eliot= Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
Hi Brian, Russ, Joel, Mark, EKR, and everyone:
Let me try again, taking into account the last few exchange= s:

All strategic b= ody meetings are open to the public, all discussions of issues take place o= n open mailing lists, and anyone is welcome to comment / discuss.=C2=A0 The= =C2=A0strategic body may decid= e to use additional forms of communication and tooling that are consistent = with IETF working group practices [RFC2418,RFC8744].

How=E2=80=99s that?=C2=A0 This will permit what I expect would = be a step by step approach in terms of how tools like Git are adopted; and = the group can decide, again, how to evolve their use of tooling based on op= erational experience.

This seem= s inconsistent with what both Mark and I were arguing. As I stated earlier,= the question of where issue discussion is to take place is one for the WG,= not for this document.

-Ekr


Eliot

--00000000000036ff0e05b725f3f6-- From nobody Wed Dec 23 10:55:36 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15CF33A0827 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 10:55:36 -0800 (PST) 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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-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 tgPk0qyyC76b for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 10:55:35 -0800 (PST) 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 063AB3A0803 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 10:55:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D1Mpt5p3Wz6GTkL; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 10:55:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1608749734; bh=6NVw+apFPDqwYRQSXWha5kOCgdFqE961qyZOWMaEdmE=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=K3cxCa1aT/9s0P9faW6rDRg5kwiVf8ZEInW/UMgas35oJtKoCaGECghT1LpJ5+Adw ftYp3rIC0LQhgrjXjIv82ybmDFEzEnwcNNIeYjWHVA7VrS783a8qQ4iCBZ2QEChG04 VOqodDDf8BB83UxwZ4jEWFOQ0C6KtRUflIRjRx34= X-Quarantine-ID: <3BYMLe63glIO> X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (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 4D1Mpt2JfBz6GR6D; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 10:55:34 -0800 (PST) To: Eric Rescorla Cc: "rfced-future@iab.org" References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <52205b0b-979e-e278-9511-e5853f9c4e9c@joelhalpern.com> <0FC1D91B-ADBD-43E0-9437-2DE9B85B4EC4@cisco.com> From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 13:55:33 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 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: [Rfced-future] quasi-WG discussion procedures X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 18:55:36 -0000 So where will the working group conduct this discussion of how it will proceed? There needs to be a starting behavior that is accepted, from which the WG can make changes. Eliot's proposed text gives us an agreed way to operate initially, and room to evolve that as the WG agrees over time. Also, it sounds like a quasi-WG that needs to be effective and deal with issues such has how to hire whatever we agree needs to be hired, is instead going to spend the first (some period longer than any of us will like) discussing how we will discuss? Really? Yours, Joel On 12/23/2020 1:34 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 8:36 AM Eliot Lear > wrote: > > Hi Brian, Russ, Joel, Mark, EKR, and everyone: > > Let me try again, taking into account the last few exchanges: > >> |All strategic body meetings are open to the public, all >> discussions of issues take place on open mailing lists, and anyone >> is welcome to comment / discuss.  The |strategic body may decide >> to use additional forms of communication and tooling that are >> consistent with IETF working group practices [RFC2418,RFC8744]. > > How’s that?  This will permit what I expect would be a step by step > approach in terms of how tools like Git are adopted; and the group > can decide, again, how to evolve their use of tooling based on > operational experience. > > > This seems inconsistent with what both Mark and I were arguing. As I > stated earlier, the question of where issue discussion is to take place > is one for the WG, not for this document. > > -Ekr > > > Eliot > From nobody Wed Dec 23 12:09:24 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 565593A09CD for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 12:09:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YZMmVA8z12w7 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 12:09:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lf1-x12a.google.com (mail-lf1-x12a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12a]) (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 BC0523A09CF for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 12:09:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf1-x12a.google.com with SMTP id l11so209504lfg.0 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 12:09:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=yqgQCJQu5ia8dAUIegTDBT88tmDDWgXVFfAko7IurUk=; b=kyS1lMIZ0OX4G/1C1EE+59AY2jIcyY69e0jNE/7KPscrVGlUYWb1yBW37R090zD37Q 9uv/jER0gcXtr3Qs7uo5azNlYZ+JbYSZQK75mMBEgUDZ2csxfB33ge7qNIzAiCRuUxXE AptfD+Qp9WfKsmkcpTUOKfM7h3KfUJbd2BpTU0JWhk5PS5hTlFCGQ8W674CbKE4kyK+0 eilbr9MMm2f3Su4qC1vB6/oaM/MgVyLIt03+Ykc/Hok2wEW8FIlTu9n4Hl9P5JczIOgR 6UWa9r4ecQCl7L1KVwNsvYL1g3hsYaHOgVPK7fSczi60Ut4MDhYDOFlxxH0LaD+WzvaZ uS0g== 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=yqgQCJQu5ia8dAUIegTDBT88tmDDWgXVFfAko7IurUk=; b=Ja27qKjusb2t/x3iRvDDUc05vFAQpQZwQ6LcpfBpojQIcCcWSEskpglsPSqxG3Scpl 8SLPWFjOhjrA4enXqen000X4i7QIMyY5IvcRy/KizuE4VK010zEsF112UL26EsxtZkA8 Ddt29mc+sTaAVsTlZVCnRvUKsEp8n0VsXfO//3ATdaw+QNWEVNEi006Zg+Y996V7YlF3 NYYYt6gOqNM0ybZapNnH3aQ373KB/UB41ht72MocK37f1VJR25cgl0fhXoJeIFgnjFfj 4AU7l5LwgnsfU+8gAGyEPMTh7VX1clqb7Q9rYWL0Vr+Vz0lQ/p+h/qI330JX5dXwNCi3 n87Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531wP2CCY5L32+MtzbCMtX2OQyTR4nnfk5hkjJeA61ExXu/rdF/L cwYPMHDECSr8VLJvRSIQDtyaTjbkBi99sE54CV3nuWZOHRZouj3B X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwkqwX4scfbO2NodJqntMxEUs9iiKg63BdllxtoDHGjrj+5nV7mdt745ixJJuA0bh44OTStY0XeF5OLKTOoUNQ= X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:1282:: with SMTP id 2mr12002702ljc.383.1608754156991; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 12:09:16 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <52205b0b-979e-e278-9511-e5853f9c4e9c@joelhalpern.com> <0FC1D91B-ADBD-43E0-9437-2DE9B85B4EC4@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: From: Eric Rescorla Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 12:08:40 -0800 Message-ID: To: "Joel M. Halpern" Cc: "rfced-future@iab.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000f0ad505b7274431" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] quasi-WG discussion procedures X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 20:09:22 -0000 --0000000000000f0ad505b7274431 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 10:55 AM Joel M. Halpern wrote: > So where will the working group conduct this discussion of how it will > proceed? There needs to be a starting behavior that is accepted, from > which the WG can make changes. > > Eliot's proposed text gives us an agreed way to operate initially, and > room to evolve that as the WG agrees over time. > Actually, what it does is encode it into the requirements rather than leaving it up to the WG. Also, it sounds like a quasi-WG that needs to be effective and deal with > issues such has how to hire whatever we agree needs to be hired, is > instead going to spend the first (some period longer than any of us will > like) discussing how we will discuss? Really? > I don't see any reason this can't be resolved quickly at the time of WG formation. For instance, in MASQUE, the chairs did a simple proposal and call for objections [0] on the list and resolved the issue in less than a week. -Ekr [0] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/ > Yours, > Joel > > On 12/23/2020 1:34 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 8:36 AM Eliot Lear > > wrote: > > > > Hi Brian, Russ, Joel, Mark, EKR, and everyone: > > > > Let me try again, taking into account the last few exchanges: > > > >> |All strategic body meetings are open to the public, all > >> discussions of issues take place on open mailing lists, and anyone > >> is welcome to comment / discuss. The |strategic body may decide > >> to use additional forms of communication and tooling that are > >> consistent with IETF working group practices [RFC2418,RFC8744]. > > > > How=E2=80=99s that? This will permit what I expect would be a step= by step > > approach in terms of how tools like Git are adopted; and the group > > can decide, again, how to evolve their use of tooling based on > > operational experience. > > > > > > This seems inconsistent with what both Mark and I were arguing. As I > > stated earlier, the question of where issue discussion is to take place > > is one for the WG, not for this document. > > > > -Ekr > > > > > > Eliot > > > --0000000000000f0ad505b7274431 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 10:55 AM Joel= M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com<= /a>> wrote:
S= o where will the working group conduct this discussion of how it will
proceed? There needs to be a starting behavior that is accepted, from
which the WG can make changes.

Eliot's proposed text gives us an agreed way to operate initially, and =
room to evolve that as the WG agrees over time.

Actually, what it does is encode it into the requirements rather t= han leaving
it up to the WG.


<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-l= eft:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> Also, it sounds like a quasi-WG that needs to be effective and deal with issues such has how to hire whatever we agree needs to be hired, is
instead going to spend the first (some period longer than any of us will like) discussing how we will discuss?=C2=A0 Really?
I don't see any reason this can't be resolved quickly = at the time of WG formation.
For instance, in MASQUE, the chairs = did a simple proposal and call for objections [0]
on the list and= resolved the issue in less than a week.

-Ekr

Yours,
Joel

On 12/23/2020 1:34 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 8:36 AM Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com
> <mailto:lear@ci= sco.com>> wrote:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Hi Brian, Russ, Joel, Mark, EKR, and everyone:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Let me try again, taking into account the last few = exchanges:
>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0|All strategic body meetings are open to the pu= blic, all
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0discussions of issues take place on open mailin= g lists, and anyone
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0is welcome to comment / discuss.=C2=A0 The |str= ategic body may decide
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0to use additional forms of communication and to= oling that are
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0consistent with IETF working group practices [R= FC2418,RFC8744].
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0How=E2=80=99s that?=C2=A0 This will permit what I e= xpect would be a step by step
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0approach in terms of how tools like Git are adopted= ; and the group
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0can decide, again, how to evolve their use of tooli= ng based on
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0operational experience.
>
>
> This seems inconsistent with what both Mark and I were arguing. As I <= br> > stated earlier, the question of where issue discussion is to take plac= e
> is one for the WG, not for this document.
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Eliot
>
--0000000000000f0ad505b7274431-- From nobody Wed Dec 23 12:11:59 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 626563A09D6 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 12:11:57 -0800 (PST) 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-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 xjqFfw1011CO for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 12:11:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pg1-x530.google.com (mail-pg1-x530.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::530]) (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 9878C3A09E9 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 12:11:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pg1-x530.google.com with SMTP id g15so253664pgu.9 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 12:11:55 -0800 (PST) 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=Wm+Ux+czM5MHG6gKT27a7xRANXt2UKzAYn9nOdIvUy0=; b=O6RGofOjKy86CzibuODCmVmRSGxFkJAikat2YUIFURySIkWjr7eZiRa/eqOMZbAH/o POVdhet+8hX63w1Oj9UH+VE/lFqJzwsg2p5s137Yx5Thn+5IZPj7TLVaOh+JMtAPLb9Z spgthOl+5PrdLUOaLizFJP9UN8I2JDFnk3oZ1DyF+y4DfSZN/1qzjYkH+Sla+HlKas8z X22twu9aDMiPB0j4M+3+raKJqatUPUb3cfI6cBLauCWznK9IJexGhPQ8MYaI8et2Gfw0 qjvKOuqDJzYaZtoIZfmOd1zETaKmxt/SIqu73sbWAM1xEvQfb2aHs5RyWZjfGwIWhww+ ui0w== 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=Wm+Ux+czM5MHG6gKT27a7xRANXt2UKzAYn9nOdIvUy0=; b=tdaBRHIHggjMmtOSCjPoHSrg51JhavDqjgx6hJPiwjXYHQNiup5qSx0mcbam1yjECo ttucMSpdUBetrxXkusHrND/QbCaCWC3u/6T/DbSOiGryEO2rg84gjBpoT3M3JN4YFiSK jA8u8+B+RMIdqxKFyCUPcIWlhUxcJxgwSSrgtQe2iF7o8bG3biQTu3ScStw8Ck8HdMrA c6Q9TmCUzG5UzMZeqKDdvs5Dpr+v3lI26Z5Lp9nkZC7XT0Onb6/ILTq6TaxBudhxatYS vSzRHOFYMf0T//Qbn2LO2w7mKdQLERcre/XKef6BM0rZnwtYzIku4A721cquXp923QRH 2EOA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532d7pUYkA6EoLGbyUJir1ll9rsorEWWTgtfyXbzPQBEXIg5Kue0 PdPcpucfBtbeDDQ3PT0M3fs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzk/jbZ6lzI49Hl9AnLq6qlfd0tBHLPIwzksX36FHjuwXbdI52YjHbsgCuUJli+cECWtXSLVQ== X-Received: by 2002:a63:720c:: with SMTP id n12mr24246943pgc.97.1608754315071; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 12:11:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.131.28]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 17sm23792694pfj.91.2020.12.23.12.11.51 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 23 Dec 2020 12:11:54 -0800 (PST) To: Eric Rescorla , Eliot Lear Cc: "rfced-future@iab.org" , "Joel M. Halpern" , Mark Nottingham References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <52205b0b-979e-e278-9511-e5853f9c4e9c@joelhalpern.com> <0FC1D91B-ADBD-43E0-9437-2DE9B85B4EC4@cisco.com> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: <8444b861-87ff-288f-1cc4-aee2ac665545@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2020 09:11:49 +1300 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: [Rfced-future] Consensus check on Issue 13: Is decision making in the strategic body open to all? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 20:11:57 -0000 On 24-Dec-20 07:34, Eric Rescorla wrote: >=20 >=20 > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 8:36 AM Eliot Lear > wrote: >=20 > Hi Brian, Russ, Joel, Mark, EKR, and everyone: >=20 > Let me try again, taking into account the last few exchanges: >=20 >> |All strategic body meetings are open to the public, all discussio= ns of issues take place on open mailing lists, and anyone is welcome to c= omment / discuss.=C2=A0 The=C2=A0|strategic body may decide to use additi= onal forms of communication and tooling that are consistent with IETF wor= king group practices [RFC2418,RFC8744]. >=20 > How=E2=80=99s that?=C2=A0 This will permit what I expect would be a= step by step approach in terms of how tools like Git are adopted; and th= e group can decide, again, how to evolve their use of tooling based on op= erational experience. >=20 >=20 > This seems inconsistent with what both Mark and I were arguing. As I st= ated earlier, the question of where issue discussion is to take place is = one for the WG, not for this document. Firstly, I don't think Eliot really meant RFC8744, although I'm sure it's= a fine document. Secondly, yes, it's inconsistent with what ekr and Mark have been arguing= =2E But I think it's the right thing to specify it. The RFC2418 etc rules= and practices have evolved over a long period, and as far as I can see t= hey allow WGs a lot of discretion on procedural details such as whether o= r not to use an issue tracker and/or version control system. But they do = prescribe a lowest common denominator tool, i.e. email. (They also prescr= ibe proper meeting minutes, a standard that almost every IETF WG misses.)= Regards Brian From nobody Wed Dec 23 12:52:02 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A1ED3A0B12 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 12:52:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.09 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.09 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, 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 eRFJ81Iqtxao for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 12:51:55 -0800 (PST) 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 B76853A0B0A for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 12:51:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D1QP73mfZz6GTkJ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 12:51:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1608756715; bh=t7sdGNNjpidXktjyrPGnO19u3Z8Ag3XcT6r1LzCcFuI=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=QoMIf4glJjC/HUmLX0P77XP2MU6Ukw/eQQjNbGtDYVcNDzxpPdQbqz/+Pv6ik65W2 AFS5KUOn1pWCKiNfJ2Xh+DTZ4VWBXl1Kzapx2Df16YwtDs5Cp6Prez8K7q4cU4XLsq xZDVtfJ11nGZkeJwTnLSHQHckPwAfHc0nA4l/Jcg= X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (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 4D1QP671dsz6GR6D; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 12:51:54 -0800 (PST) To: Eric Rescorla Cc: "rfced-future@iab.org" References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <52205b0b-979e-e278-9511-e5853f9c4e9c@joelhalpern.com> <0FC1D91B-ADBD-43E0-9437-2DE9B85B4EC4@cisco.com> From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: <056684f2-ab2c-5b85-4dfd-bada78e1e528@joelhalpern.com> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:51:54 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 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: [Rfced-future] quasi-WG discussion procedures X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 20:52:00 -0000 Given that I will object to a proposal to operate that way, and I presume others will as well, and at the same time I expect significant objection to a proposal that all discussion be on the mailing list, I do not see how you can reasonable expect that to be a simple or short discussion. Having said that, I hope something close to what you pointed at can be done. There are a number of important tricky points. As it is said, the devil is in the details. I do agree with Mark and you that this is not the place to work out those tricky points. Which is why I like Eliot's wording. Yours, Joel On 12/23/2020 3:08 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 10:55 AM Joel M. Halpern > wrote: > > So where will the working group conduct this discussion of how it will > proceed? There needs to be a starting behavior that is accepted, from > which the WG can make changes. > > Eliot's proposed text gives us an agreed way to operate initially, and > room to evolve that as the WG agrees over time. > > > Actually, what it does is encode it into the requirements rather than > leaving > it up to the WG. > > > Also, it sounds like a quasi-WG that needs to be effective and deal > with > issues such has how to hire whatever we agree needs to be hired, is > instead going to spend the first (some period longer than any of us > will > like) discussing how we will discuss?  Really? > > > I don't see any reason this can't be resolved quickly at the time of WG > formation. > For instance, in MASQUE, the chairs did a simple proposal and call for > objections [0] > on the list and resolved the issue in less than a week. > > -Ekr > > [0] > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/ > > Yours, > Joel > > On 12/23/2020 1:34 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 8:36 AM Eliot Lear > > >> wrote: > > > >     Hi Brian, Russ, Joel, Mark, EKR, and everyone: > > > >     Let me try again, taking into account the last few exchanges: > > > >>     |All strategic body meetings are open to the public, all > >>     discussions of issues take place on open mailing lists, and > anyone > >>     is welcome to comment / discuss.  The |strategic body may decide > >>     to use additional forms of communication and tooling that are > >>     consistent with IETF working group practices [RFC2418,RFC8744]. > > > >     How’s that?  This will permit what I expect would be a step > by step > >     approach in terms of how tools like Git are adopted; and the > group > >     can decide, again, how to evolve their use of tooling based on > >     operational experience. > > > > > > This seems inconsistent with what both Mark and I were arguing. As I > > stated earlier, the question of where issue discussion is to take > place > > is one for the WG, not for this document. > > > > -Ekr > > > > > >     Eliot > > > > From nobody Wed Dec 23 12:59:17 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 278853A0B38 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 12:59:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2_YwwPEYpEGe for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 12:59:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lf1-x133.google.com (mail-lf1-x133.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::133]) (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 1CCEA3A0B37 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 12:59:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf1-x133.google.com with SMTP id x20so337096lfe.12 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 12:59:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=0kjk+oS6qfx4FEH9dURC5iTvsaMbc5upW4vgyjSkXZA=; b=s/lVBGIcbB0fDVmYssbpgpg0dws8iLq4ybvJ+tHtdiHgu61aiZcxrvJYOkn4ThpXJW RRRpWZzxkRu8J1u9y0bahkw/7jBGlL6zZQytLCJBsgWb3sPwfohAx+oV1COpRjjjDbv2 KiuwJnyWA1N3VK2fTUhzd5/l5G6UsE3BANUfrU8hE8SaI8hQG0e0k5JED9UBcPppR+nk TJ0nGV1HtvFsbNt8Ait4UsG9loxeTSbb5z/UX07+OlUmX3i4ll3TvnwaYctRfODgY5jN VodXsFvKRq+JJi0hYLGU8IVTUEBSwcHFymhl+bruJfU5iqoVuxH2vRdSb6wOghnI+Zf8 w2fg== 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=0kjk+oS6qfx4FEH9dURC5iTvsaMbc5upW4vgyjSkXZA=; b=kSpwVEey8YrMKDa4JqDhGO0wmIs0bVCNHrhhwGtRD6jrVTF2mCyXxFf7DDSzPWxxb2 u7LV7LapcMXo/IVYr62mQSMtrpe0UHZ3KaAUgRkHjb576sfgs/uUiAI0oK+czoiwbGXD u7gDNSMtc8SxS7jOwZYSf9kVTw3PUQ5++5OF96ZJx3LZU+RpY7xJxvdzL/o9SyTnEBl6 i9uaCZtPa07OvTUBLsauivqc1ZCXgvhsRfAm9HWTj5+aIbe1ZoB/HrDMEPQSsPDbuG+a CX+SysXZs1GXTpY3qrJgnoUwfnlCk9NPAuo15tM0Us1hPLSWte/hP/KA8UCddp5+Zlgd A9ng== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530cl1ll3pjqjzcdeeaApmmKLzmgc4mSqA+qa/ZUuuJQh/L9GeLC 9JRqJmFJ+1QyVAz9wEAlhBZfWqLW9wC8vmJ1vpmrNsabFFO+Bg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxm4kmzOumn+Qcmfm07ssnwbAgKimWZy4Cmb4beCXIJ6Im/PamQ4oEbVcWzYG9DOif/yks45rMMJGthe+xI3pE= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:3284:: with SMTP id p4mr10832930lfe.245.1608757152230; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 12:59:12 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <52205b0b-979e-e278-9511-e5853f9c4e9c@joelhalpern.com> <0FC1D91B-ADBD-43E0-9437-2DE9B85B4EC4@cisco.com> <056684f2-ab2c-5b85-4dfd-bada78e1e528@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: <056684f2-ab2c-5b85-4dfd-bada78e1e528@joelhalpern.com> From: Eric Rescorla Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 12:58:36 -0800 Message-ID: To: "Joel M. Halpern" Cc: "rfced-future@iab.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000096c24f05b727f60a" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] quasi-WG discussion procedures X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 20:59:16 -0000 --00000000000096c24f05b727f60a Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 12:51 PM Joel M. Halpern wrote: > Given that I will object to a proposal to operate that way, and I > presume others will as well, and at the same time I expect significant > objection to a proposal that all discussion be on the mailing list, I do > not see how you can reasonable expect that to be a simple or short > discussion. > > Having said that, I hope something close to what you pointed at can be > done. There are a number of important tricky points. As it is said, > the devil is in the details. I do agree with Mark and you that this is > not the place to work out those tricky points. Which is why I like > Eliot's wording. > The problem with Eliot's wording is that it actually forecloses the WG having this discussion by pre-deciding it here. -Ekr > Yours, > Joel > > On 12/23/2020 3:08 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 10:55 AM Joel M. Halpern > > wrote: > > > > So where will the working group conduct this discussion of how it > will > > proceed? There needs to be a starting behavior that is accepted, fr= om > > which the WG can make changes. > > > > Eliot's proposed text gives us an agreed way to operate initially, > and > > room to evolve that as the WG agrees over time. > > > > > > Actually, what it does is encode it into the requirements rather than > > leaving > > it up to the WG. > > > > > > Also, it sounds like a quasi-WG that needs to be effective and deal > > with > > issues such has how to hire whatever we agree needs to be hired, is > > instead going to spend the first (some period longer than any of us > > will > > like) discussing how we will discuss? Really? > > > > > > I don't see any reason this can't be resolved quickly at the time of WG > > formation. > > For instance, in MASQUE, the chairs did a simple proposal and call for > > objections [0] > > on the list and resolved the issue in less than a week. > > > > -Ekr > > > > [0] > > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/ > > > > > > Yours, > > Joel > > > > On 12/23/2020 1:34 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 8:36 AM Eliot Lear > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Brian, Russ, Joel, Mark, EKR, and everyone: > > > > > > Let me try again, taking into account the last few exchanges= : > > > > > >> |All strategic body meetings are open to the public, all > > >> discussions of issues take place on open mailing lists, and > > anyone > > >> is welcome to comment / discuss. The |strategic body may > decide > > >> to use additional forms of communication and tooling that a= re > > >> consistent with IETF working group practices > [RFC2418,RFC8744]. > > > > > > How=E2=80=99s that? This will permit what I expect would be= a step > > by step > > > approach in terms of how tools like Git are adopted; and the > > group > > > can decide, again, how to evolve their use of tooling based = on > > > operational experience. > > > > > > > > > This seems inconsistent with what both Mark and I were arguing. > As I > > > stated earlier, the question of where issue discussion is to tak= e > > place > > > is one for the WG, not for this document. > > > > > > -Ekr > > > > > > > > > Eliot > > > > > > > > --00000000000096c24f05b727f60a Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 12:51 PM Joel= M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com<= /a>> wrote:
G= iven that I will object to a proposal to operate that way, and I
presume others will as well, and at the same time I expect significant
objection to a proposal that all discussion be on the mailing list, I do not see how you can reasonable expect that to be a simple or short
discussion.

Having said that, I hope something close to what you pointed at can be
done.=C2=A0 There are a number of important tricky points.=C2=A0 As it is s= aid,
the devil is in the details.=C2=A0 I do agree with Mark and you that this i= s
not the place to work out those tricky points.=C2=A0 Which is why I like Eliot's wording.



Yours,
Joel

On 12/23/2020 3:08 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 10:55 AM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com
> <mailto:jm= h@joelhalpern.com>> wrote:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0So where will the working group conduct this discus= sion of how it will
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0proceed? There needs to be a starting behavior that= is accepted, from
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0which the WG can make changes.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Eliot's proposed text gives us an agreed way to= operate initially, and
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0room to evolve that as the WG agrees over time.
>
>
> Actually, what it does is encode it into the requirements rather than =
> leaving
> it up to the WG.
>
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Also, it sounds like a quasi-WG that needs to be ef= fective and deal
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0with
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0issues such has how to hire whatever we agree needs= to be hired, is
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0instead going to spend the first (some period longe= r than any of us
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0will
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0like) discussing how we will discuss?=C2=A0 Really?=
>
>
> I don't see any reason this can't be resolved quickly at the t= ime of WG
> formation.
> For instance, in MASQUE, the chairs did a simple proposal and call for=
> objections [0]
> on the list and resolved the issue in less than a week.
>
> -Ekr
>
> [0]
> https://mailarchive.ie= tf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/ <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mas= que/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/>
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Yours,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Joel
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0On 12/23/2020 1:34 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 8:36 AM Eliot Lear &l= t;lear@cisco.com >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:lear@cisco.com>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > <mailto:lear@cisco.com <mailto:lear@cisco.com>>> wrote:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Hi Brian, Russ, Joel, Mark= , EKR, and everyone:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Let me try again, taking i= nto account the last few exchanges:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0|All strategic body me= etings are open to the public, all
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0discussions of issues = take place on open mailing lists, and
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0anyone
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0is welcome to comment = / discuss.=C2=A0 The |strategic body may decide
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0to use additional form= s of communication and tooling that are
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0consistent with IETF w= orking group practices [RFC2418,RFC8744].
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0How=E2=80=99s that?=C2=A0 = This will permit what I expect would be a step
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0by step
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0approach in terms of how t= ools like Git are adopted; and the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0group
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0can decide, again, how to = evolve their use of tooling based on
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0operational experience. >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > This seems inconsistent with what both Mark a= nd I were arguing. As I
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > stated earlier, the question of where issue d= iscussion is to take
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0place
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > is one for the WG, not for this document.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > -Ekr
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Eliot
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>
>
--00000000000096c24f05b727f60a-- From nobody Wed Dec 23 13:05:51 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53E003A0B56 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 13:05:50 -0800 (PST) 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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-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 cVnE1-C4Qpb5 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 13:05:48 -0800 (PST) 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 D71863A0B45 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 13:05:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D1Qj85CZcz6G889; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 13:05:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1608757548; bh=EtRsXyuWQPqYhLODC+GTWA+bDynr0bza+mTih8Z+L5M=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=nARD2xKzZ5MKk91tCedQsk9JXAmvF+GmDQIklqcYiz9QvVmd3tmh/8O1TFVcKLajs YaT3I2EbTWgJbBaf/vORIht4J94JZ7cnNu4L18IjBzNTreGdonw2JqKexkgRxci4Uw YJzOzmHL2oqiQ9CCPib+PPRyM7Cy31rw/HvaweNU= X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (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 4D1Qj81Y2Gz6GTj5; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 13:05:48 -0800 (PST) To: Eric Rescorla Cc: "rfced-future@iab.org" References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <52205b0b-979e-e278-9511-e5853f9c4e9c@joelhalpern.com> <0FC1D91B-ADBD-43E0-9437-2DE9B85B4EC4@cisco.com> <056684f2-ab2c-5b85-4dfd-bada78e1e528@joelhalpern.com> From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 16:05:47 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 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: [Rfced-future] quasi-WG discussion procedures X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 21:05:50 -0000 Apparently, you and I are reading the same words very differently. I see: The strategic body may decide to use additional forms of communication and tooling that are consistent with IETF working group practices [RFC2418,RFC8744]. Presuming that 8744 was intended to be 8874, that appears to explicilty allow the quasi-WG to choose to use any additional forms of communication. It does presuppose that email will also be an alternative. That seems to enable exactly the discussion you and Mark want. I do not see how that wording "forecloses the WG having this discussion". Yours, Joel On 12/23/2020 3:58 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 12:51 PM Joel M. Halpern > wrote: > > Given that I will object to a proposal to operate that way, and I > presume others will as well, and at the same time I expect significant > objection to a proposal that all discussion be on the mailing list, > I do > not see how you can reasonable expect that to be a simple or short > discussion. > > Having said that, I hope something close to what you pointed at can be > done.  There are a number of important tricky points.  As it is said, > the devil is in the details.  I do agree with Mark and you that this is > not the place to work out those tricky points.  Which is why I like > Eliot's wording. > > > The problem with Eliot's wording is that it actually forecloses the WG > having this discussion by pre-deciding it here. > > -Ekr > > > Yours, > Joel > > On 12/23/2020 3:08 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 10:55 AM Joel M. Halpern > > > >> wrote: > > > >     So where will the working group conduct this discussion of > how it will > >     proceed? There needs to be a starting behavior that is > accepted, from > >     which the WG can make changes. > > > >     Eliot's proposed text gives us an agreed way to operate > initially, and > >     room to evolve that as the WG agrees over time. > > > > > > Actually, what it does is encode it into the requirements rather > than > > leaving > > it up to the WG. > > > > > >     Also, it sounds like a quasi-WG that needs to be effective > and deal > >     with > >     issues such has how to hire whatever we agree needs to be > hired, is > >     instead going to spend the first (some period longer than any > of us > >     will > >     like) discussing how we will discuss?  Really? > > > > > > I don't see any reason this can't be resolved quickly at the time > of WG > > formation. > > For instance, in MASQUE, the chairs did a simple proposal and > call for > > objections [0] > > on the list and resolved the issue in less than a week. > > > > -Ekr > > > > [0] > > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/ > > > > > > >     Yours, > >     Joel > > > >     On 12/23/2020 1:34 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > >      > > >      > > >      > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 8:36 AM Eliot Lear > >     > > >      > > >>> wrote: > >      > > >      >     Hi Brian, Russ, Joel, Mark, EKR, and everyone: > >      > > >      >     Let me try again, taking into account the last few > exchanges: > >      > > >      >>     |All strategic body meetings are open to the public, all > >      >>     discussions of issues take place on open mailing > lists, and > >     anyone > >      >>     is welcome to comment / discuss.  The |strategic body > may decide > >      >>     to use additional forms of communication and tooling > that are > >      >>     consistent with IETF working group practices > [RFC2418,RFC8744]. > >      > > >      >     How’s that?  This will permit what I expect would be a > step > >     by step > >      >     approach in terms of how tools like Git are adopted; > and the > >     group > >      >     can decide, again, how to evolve their use of tooling > based on > >      >     operational experience. > >      > > >      > > >      > This seems inconsistent with what both Mark and I were > arguing. As I > >      > stated earlier, the question of where issue discussion is > to take > >     place > >      > is one for the WG, not for this document. > >      > > >      > -Ekr > >      > > >      > > >      >     Eliot > >      > > > > > > From nobody Wed Dec 23 13:25:02 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 805C03A0BFD for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 13:25:01 -0800 (PST) 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, 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, 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=akamai.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 xt0O7dZTHdU3 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 13:25:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (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 34C1B3A0BF8 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 13:24:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0050102.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050102.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 0BNL95IF002301; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 21:24:58 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=yuESy/1rw658iqhEiXIcEbRVwnrDs6NtmYPimV07AFw=; b=CLAG6VosTM4Vw3sY24RZ9sYzT/ahBPKyBSO90vAehfDjngXf8N1sraZFgbZ4KOjB/hjL 0SSBnr+01FslK7s2M5UIQA5xe72sqVhCV7DxCWIc3BKg+ptwB1L6awc4m/YU/+xkiV5G y1HJK9pR1xAOnrGKVDbDkl8xRBKGta0ebejbJO+fGqn8/hPyNkoLDphlKLOJPhPnH1Km 3c4ZcRsMVWHDaxIqp3ZonKZ7vZbZp26M8MpbmMRVUTs3yZ1H3rpimh82lfZc6jm9znEP AHfaXCYSgtbvMWVi6A9Hg5mVDj/DuYP8QSEFhk9EE6ERb0hJfcObGBOoDQwdY6t3COXY +g== Received: from prod-mail-ppoint2 (prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com [184.51.33.19] (may be forged)) by m0050102.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 35k0e4etb2-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 23 Dec 2020 21:24:58 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 0BNLJQqG007306; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 16:24:57 -0500 Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.30]) by prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com with ESMTP id 35k0m1d7dj-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 23 Dec 2020 16:24:57 -0500 Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.101) by usma1ex-dag1mb3.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.103) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 16:24:56 -0500 Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) by usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.010; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 16:24:56 -0500 From: "Salz, Rich" To: Eric Rescorla , "Joel M. Halpern" CC: "rfced-future@iab.org" Thread-Topic: [Rfced-future] quasi-WG discussion procedures Thread-Index: AQHW2V03q9zGlQfT+UW7SEz8B/r3laoFb+YA///BfgA= Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 21:24:56 +0000 Message-ID: <2DC765E9-CA8B-4767-84B4-C5A6F0B385A8@akamai.com> References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <52205b0b-979e-e278-9511-e5853f9c4e9c@joelhalpern.com> <0FC1D91B-ADBD-43E0-9437-2DE9B85B4EC4@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.44.20121301 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [172.27.118.139] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2DC765E9CA8B476784B4C5A6F0B385A8akamaicom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.343, 18.0.737 definitions=2020-12-23_12:2020-12-23, 2020-12-23 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=867 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2012230149 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.343, 18.0.737 definitions=2020-12-23_12:2020-12-23, 2020-12-23 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxlogscore=782 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 impostorscore=0 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2012230149 X-Agari-Authentication-Results: mx.akamai.com; spf=${SPFResult} (sender IP is 184.51.33.19) smtp.mailfrom=rsalz@akamai.com smtp.helo=prod-mail-ppoint2 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] quasi-WG discussion procedures X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 21:25:02 -0000 --_000_2DC765E9CA8B476784B4C5A6F0B385A8akamaicom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 ICAqICAgQWN0dWFsbHksIHdoYXQgaXQgZG9lcyBpcyBlbmNvZGUgaXQgaW50byB0aGUgcmVxdWly ZW1lbnRzIHJhdGhlciB0aGFuIGxlYXZpbmcNCml0IHVwIHRvIHRoZSBXRy4NCg0KQWdyZWVkLg0K --_000_2DC765E9CA8B476784B4C5A6F0B385A8akamaicom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <9CDAF83DF462D742BBF74E18348D8148@akamai.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6bz0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6b2ZmaWNlIiB4 bWxuczp3PSJ1cm46c2NoZW1hcy1taWNyb3NvZnQtY29tOm9mZmljZTp3b3JkIiB4bWxuczptPSJo dHRwOi8vc2NoZW1hcy5taWNyb3NvZnQuY29tL29mZmljZS8yMDA0LzEyL29tbWwiIHhtbG5zPSJo dHRwOi8vd3d3LnczLm9yZy9UUi9SRUMtaHRtbDQwIj4NCjxoZWFkPg0KPG1ldGEgaHR0cC1lcXVp dj0iQ29udGVudC1UeXBlIiBjb250ZW50PSJ0ZXh0L2h0bWw7IGNoYXJzZXQ9dXRmLTgiPg0KPG1l dGEgbmFtZT0iR2VuZXJhdG9yIiBjb250ZW50PSJNaWNyb3NvZnQgV29yZCAxNSAoZmlsdGVyZWQg bWVkaXVtKSI+DQo8c3R5bGU+PCEtLQ0KLyogRm9udCBEZWZpbml0aW9ucyAqLw0KQGZvbnQtZmFj ZQ0KCXtmb250LWZhbWlseTpXaW5nZGluZ3M7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6NSAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAg MDt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYW1icmlhIE1hdGgiOw0KCXBhbm9zZS0x OjIgNCA1IDMgNSA0IDYgMyAyIDQ7fQ0KQGZvbnQtZmFjZQ0KCXtmb250LWZhbWlseTpDYWxpYnJp Ow0KCXBhbm9zZS0xOjIgMTUgNSAyIDIgMiA0IDMgMiA0O30NCi8qIFN0eWxlIERlZmluaXRpb25z ICovDQpwLk1zb05vcm1hbCwgbGkuTXNvTm9ybWFsLCBkaXYuTXNvTm9ybWFsDQoJe21hcmdpbjow aW47DQoJZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsc2Fucy1zZXJp Zjt9DQpwLk1zb0xpc3RQYXJhZ3JhcGgsIGxpLk1zb0xpc3RQYXJhZ3JhcGgsIGRpdi5Nc29MaXN0 UGFyYWdyYXBoDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1wcmlvcml0eTozNDsNCgltYXJnaW4tdG9wOjBpbjsNCglt YXJnaW4tcmlnaHQ6MGluOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206MGluOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1sZWZ0Oi41aW47 DQoJZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsc2Fucy1zZXJpZjt9 DQpzcGFuLkVtYWlsU3R5bGUxOA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtdHlwZTpwZXJzb25hbC1yZXBseTsNCglm b250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsc2Fucy1zZXJpZjsNCgljb2xvcjp3aW5kb3d0ZXh0O30NCi5N c29DaHBEZWZhdWx0DQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS10eXBlOmV4cG9ydC1vbmx5Ow0KCWZvbnQtc2l6ZTox MC4wcHQ7fQ0KQHBhZ2UgV29yZFNlY3Rpb24xDQoJe3NpemU6OC41aW4gMTEuMGluOw0KCW1hcmdp bjoxLjBpbiAxLjBpbiAxLjBpbiAxLjBpbjt9DQpkaXYuV29yZFNlY3Rpb24xDQoJe3BhZ2U6V29y ZFNlY3Rpb24xO30NCi8qIExpc3QgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCkBsaXN0IGwwDQoJe21zby1saXN0 LWlkOjI5ODgwNzYwNjsNCgltc28tbGlzdC10eXBlOmh5YnJpZDsNCgltc28tbGlzdC10ZW1wbGF0 ZS1pZHM6MTE2NDQ1MzI2NiAtMTI3MDQ2MDM3MCA2NzY5ODY5MSA2NzY5ODY5MyA2NzY5ODY4OSA2 NzY5ODY5MSA2NzY5ODY5MyA2NzY5ODY4OSA2NzY5ODY5MSA2NzY5ODY5Mzt9DQpAbGlzdCBsMDps ZXZlbDENCgl7bXNvLWxldmVsLXN0YXJ0LWF0OjA7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1mb3JtYXQ6 YnVsbGV0Ow0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC10ZXh0Ou+DmDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGFiLXN0b3A6bm9uZTsN Cgltc28tbGV2ZWwtbnVtYmVyLXBvc2l0aW9uOmxlZnQ7DQoJdGV4dC1pbmRlbnQ6LS4yNWluOw0K CW1zby1hbnNpLWZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMi4wcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6V2luZ2RpbmdzOw0KCW1z by1mYXJlYXN0LWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4iOw0KCW1zby1iaWRpLWZvbnQt ZmFtaWx5OkNhbGlicmk7DQoJbXNvLWFuc2ktZm9udC13ZWlnaHQ6Ym9sZDt9DQpAbGlzdCBsMDps ZXZlbDINCgl7bXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1mb3JtYXQ6YnVsbGV0Ow0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC10ZXh0 Om87DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRhYi1zdG9wOm5vbmU7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1wb3NpdGlv bjpsZWZ0Ow0KCXRleHQtaW5kZW50Oi0uMjVpbjsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ291cmllciBOZXci O30NCkBsaXN0IGwwOmxldmVsMw0KCXttc28tbGV2ZWwtbnVtYmVyLWZvcm1hdDpidWxsZXQ7DQoJ bXNvLWxldmVsLXRleHQ674KnOw0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC10YWItc3RvcDpub25lOw0KCW1zby1sZXZl bC1udW1iZXItcG9zaXRpb246bGVmdDsNCgl0ZXh0LWluZGVudDotLjI1aW47DQoJZm9udC1mYW1p bHk6V2luZ2RpbmdzO30NCkBsaXN0IGwwOmxldmVsNA0KCXttc28tbGV2ZWwtbnVtYmVyLWZvcm1h dDpidWxsZXQ7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRleHQ674K3Ow0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC10YWItc3RvcDpub25l Ow0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItcG9zaXRpb246bGVmdDsNCgl0ZXh0LWluZGVudDotLjI1aW47 DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6U3ltYm9sO30NCkBsaXN0IGwwOmxldmVsNQ0KCXttc28tbGV2ZWwtbnVt YmVyLWZvcm1hdDpidWxsZXQ7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRleHQ6bzsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGFiLXN0 b3A6bm9uZTsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtbnVtYmVyLXBvc2l0aW9uOmxlZnQ7DQoJdGV4dC1pbmRlbnQ6 LS4yNWluOw0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDb3VyaWVyIE5ldyI7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDA6bGV2ZWw2DQoJ e21zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItZm9ybWF0OmJ1bGxldDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGV4dDrvgqc7DQoJ bXNvLWxldmVsLXRhYi1zdG9wOm5vbmU7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1wb3NpdGlvbjpsZWZ0 Ow0KCXRleHQtaW5kZW50Oi0uMjVpbjsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseTpXaW5nZGluZ3M7fQ0KQGxpc3Qg bDA6bGV2ZWw3DQoJe21zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItZm9ybWF0OmJ1bGxldDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwt dGV4dDrvgrc7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRhYi1zdG9wOm5vbmU7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1w b3NpdGlvbjpsZWZ0Ow0KCXRleHQtaW5kZW50Oi0uMjVpbjsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseTpTeW1ib2w7 fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDA6bGV2ZWw4DQoJe21zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItZm9ybWF0OmJ1bGxldDsNCglt c28tbGV2ZWwtdGV4dDpvOw0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC10YWItc3RvcDpub25lOw0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC1u dW1iZXItcG9zaXRpb246bGVmdDsNCgl0ZXh0LWluZGVudDotLjI1aW47DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6 IkNvdXJpZXIgTmV3Ijt9DQpAbGlzdCBsMDpsZXZlbDkNCgl7bXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1mb3Jt YXQ6YnVsbGV0Ow0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC10ZXh0Ou+CpzsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGFiLXN0b3A6bm9u ZTsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtbnVtYmVyLXBvc2l0aW9uOmxlZnQ7DQoJdGV4dC1pbmRlbnQ6LS4yNWlu Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OldpbmdkaW5nczt9DQpvbA0KCXttYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tOjBpbjt9DQp1 bA0KCXttYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tOjBpbjt9DQotLT48L3N0eWxlPg0KPC9oZWFkPg0KPGJvZHkgbGFu Zz0iRU4tVVMiIGxpbms9ImJsdWUiIHZsaW5rPSJwdXJwbGUiIHN0eWxlPSJ3b3JkLXdyYXA6YnJl YWstd29yZCI+DQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSJXb3JkU2VjdGlvbjEiPg0KPGRpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8ZGl2 Pg0KPHVsIHN0eWxlPSJtYXJnaW4tdG9wOjBpbiIgdHlwZT0iZGlzYyI+DQo8bGkgY2xhc3M9Ik1z b0xpc3RQYXJhZ3JhcGgiIHN0eWxlPSJtYXJnaW4tbGVmdDowaW47bXNvLWxpc3Q6bDAgbGV2ZWwx IGxmbzEiPkFjdHVhbGx5LCB3aGF0IGl0IGRvZXMgaXMgZW5jb2RlIGl0IGludG8gdGhlIHJlcXVp cmVtZW50cyByYXRoZXIgdGhhbiBsZWF2aW5nPG86cD48L286cD48L2xpPjwvdWw+DQo8L2Rpdj4N CjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj5pdCB1cCB0byB0aGUgV0cuPG86cD48L286cD48 L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNz PSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPkFncmVlZC48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwi PjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2JvZHk+ DQo8L2h0bWw+DQo= --_000_2DC765E9CA8B476784B4C5A6F0B385A8akamaicom_-- From nobody Wed Dec 23 13:27:06 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B96143A0BFF for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 13:27:04 -0800 (PST) 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, 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 gpSecpv79HXY for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 13:27:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B424F3A0BFD for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 13:27:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p548dca87.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.202.135]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4D1R9b2k2zzySV; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 22:26:59 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <0726262c-18ea-ae3e-c6a5-ad127dfd36c6@joelhalpern.com> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 22:26:59 +0100 Cc: Christian Huitema , rfced-future@iab.org X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 630451618.787009-a67338fc551cc10cb4189e81f3a3b7f3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1A07F196-3DBA-4D63-95EB-F7537BAC73C4@tzi.org> References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <441ca4b4-98d6-06d3-fab1-17455ff6d559@huitema.net> <0726262c-18ea-ae3e-c6a5-ad127dfd36c6@joelhalpern.com> To: "Joel M. Halpern" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] WG Document review body X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 21:27:05 -0000 (Taking you away from the github issues vs. email discussion.) On 2020-12-19, at 21:08, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >=20 > Having a review body would likely help some of my concerns. (Not all, = but that is a separate thread). > Even if the RS{EA} does not ahve a vote on the review body, I think it = would be good to include that person in the review process. It is hard to codify culture, but the culture should be to listen to the = RSE. One step in that direction would be to make the RSE a non-voting(*) = member of the review body. Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten (*)Ouch. Is there a better term for what I mean? From nobody Wed Dec 23 13:30:18 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5288A3A0C31 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 13:30:17 -0800 (PST) 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, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, 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=akamai.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 zqFaCvIErs1s for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 13:30:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9001:583::1]) (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 197833A0C26 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 13:30:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0122332.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 0BNLAh2v004112; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 21:30:14 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=3b0OfqFkKqX953p0uViwdqBlbPmIsS16JIKObYnuh0U=; b=ZqWlW2WHMZBXbRkJPWiYU/+wAXVNtRFNtAd+SFRtPArm8WdS/BnbPm9+S3f0tNrSKy1M QZ9l9zMpaHBrfUGQDYkutdY2JEouw9FtZ/Gn1VWOwZ3QlRhoqMNlTFdZ+BoQ2161y4qu 8ZObQVpBu9U5q46KTi/2DMj17kNYdWQ/KxwGRaL/RS7xWNt50Ry1AoeNF0hn5qDNqBpE xTIErgEa1EUw0KVby1v0Bw636DBC/M0WITY3MKRSOv61zND5cZf03t5aZ+AyjDg/Efrl f+BSh1eTyxPSjecZDkNiQCgQC2NiI5lDQKgzA0RG+5kSCo6RlaV1LImc7wWTBSEali04 Kg== Received: from prod-mail-ppoint4 (a72-247-45-32.deploy.static.akamaitechnologies.com [72.247.45.32] (may be forged)) by mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 35k0f72hrq-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 23 Dec 2020 21:30:14 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint4.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint4.akamai.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 0BNLIsrK018358; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 16:30:13 -0500 Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.31]) by prod-mail-ppoint4.akamai.com with ESMTP id 35k0rrq3cd-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 23 Dec 2020 16:30:12 -0500 Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.101) by usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 16:30:11 -0500 Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) by usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.010; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 16:30:11 -0500 From: "Salz, Rich" To: "Joel M. Halpern" , Eric Rescorla CC: "rfced-future@iab.org" Thread-Topic: [Rfced-future] quasi-WG discussion procedures Thread-Index: AQHW2V03q9zGlQfT+UW7SEz8B/r3laoFb+YAgAAMFQD//7bfAA== Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 21:30:11 +0000 Message-ID: References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <52205b0b-979e-e278-9511-e5853f9c4e9c@joelhalpern.com> <0FC1D91B-ADBD-43E0-9437-2DE9B85B4EC4@cisco.com> <056684f2-ab2c-5b85-4dfd-bada78e1e528@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: <056684f2-ab2c-5b85-4dfd-bada78e1e528@joelhalpern.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.44.20121301 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [172.27.118.139] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.343, 18.0.737 definitions=2020-12-23_12:2020-12-23, 2020-12-23 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxlogscore=897 mlxscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2012230149 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.343, 18.0.737 definitions=2020-12-23_12:2020-12-23, 2020-12-23 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=0 spamscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxlogscore=815 clxscore=1015 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2012230149 X-Agari-Authentication-Results: mx.akamai.com; spf=${SPFResult} (sender IP is 72.247.45.32) smtp.mailfrom=rsalz@akamai.com smtp.helo=prod-mail-ppoint4 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] quasi-WG discussion procedures X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 21:30:17 -0000 DQo+ICAgIEdpdmVuIHRoYXQgSSB3aWxsIG9iamVjdCB0byBhIHByb3Bvc2FsIHRvIG9wZXJhdGUg dGhhdCB3YXksIGFuZCBJIA0KICAgIHByZXN1bWUgb3RoZXJzIHdpbGwgYXMgd2VsbCwgYW5kIGF0 IHRoZSBzYW1lIHRpbWUgSSBleHBlY3Qgc2lnbmlmaWNhbnQgDQogICAgb2JqZWN0aW9uIHRvIGEg cHJvcG9zYWwgdGhhdCBhbGwgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBiZSBvbiB0aGUgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0LCBJIGRv IA0KICAgIG5vdCBzZWUgaG93IHlvdSBjYW4gcmVhc29uYWJsZSBleHBlY3QgdGhhdCB0byBiZSBh IHNpbXBsZSBvciBzaG9ydCANCiAgICBkaXNjdXNzaW9uLg0KDQpTdXJlLCBiZWNhdXNlIGFmdGVy IHRoZSBpbml0aWFsIHNldCBvZiBwb3N0aW5ncywgbW9zdCBvZiB0aGUgZm9sbG93LXVwcyB3aWxs IGJlICJJIGxpa2UgZW1haWwiICAiSSBsaWtlIEdpdEh1YiIgYW5kIHZlcnkgbGl0dGxlIG90aGVy IHRoYW4gcGVyc29uYWwgcHJlZmVyZW5jZXMgd2lsbCBiZSBleHByZXNzZWQuDQoNCkl0IHdpbGwg anVzdCB0YWtlIGEgc3Ryb25nIGNoYWlyLyhzZXQgb2YgY2hhaXJzKSB0byBoYW5kbGUgdGhlIGRp c2N1c3Npb24gY29ycmVjdGx5Lg0KDQo= From nobody Wed Dec 23 13:31:38 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF0223A0C7C for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 13:31:36 -0800 (PST) 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, 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.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 RUzoftyNcpWo for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 13:31:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (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 A4B673A0C37 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 13:31:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0122331.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 0BNLTA6d022346; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 21:31:34 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=UuiQ5FFoCMbpZG2s7it/XW9n/QE6MRbsz/VOhth6QcE=; b=hdrAIXScnDKpRgTdMvf+uTRb7C3LvaNcYoKAjuBt0RNr3M2oloMsmw6iFdCJMkLFQ0ra 78MGH1D+XriTTdkyQ4qHLKj4jWzepr8CILtnOrIsglnlRSwQhcuKmWRDz/cvbavzw/7y k4CmfQw5mkKnVuI/cyniJTjXUKcyBDC4bFy4DRtbAuHY6VrLuLNtUrkDcHuivAKZp9TD HCVnQ7PUgGcLYlI5cTAVQ4sTTcU9r6AsaakmeqwikbdmXMg/aeZpabBGIaQD/T8i9nqq ABpHNE3DDyJQPR2OLfMoK4QagLsPyoKlpClLtREGWTTI9dBGglEFuvUFpk6wmSGrpmbo 3Q== Received: from prod-mail-ppoint1 (prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com [184.51.33.18] (may be forged)) by mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 35k0dkjm94-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 23 Dec 2020 21:31:33 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 0BNLJemD013657; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 16:31:33 -0500 Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.34]) by prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com with ESMTP id 35k0fs57kq-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 23 Dec 2020 16:31:32 -0500 Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.101) by usma1ex-dag1mb3.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.103) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 16:31:32 -0500 Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) by usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.010; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 16:31:32 -0500 From: "Salz, Rich" To: Eliot Lear , Brian E Carpenter CC: "rfced-future@iab.org" , Eric Rescorla , "Joel M. Halpern" , Mark Nottingham Thread-Topic: [Rfced-future] Consensus check on Issue 13: Is decision making in the strategic body open to all? Thread-Index: AQHW1SOKca9GY6g2IkiD8MQU3tsGeqoC2CYAgAALb4CAAAEiAIAAzJmAgAAU+ACAAB0aAIABWYEA///+y4A= Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 21:31:31 +0000 Message-ID: References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <52205b0b-979e-e278-9511-e5853f9c4e9c@joelhalpern.com> <0FC1D91B-ADBD-43E0-9437-2DE9B85B4EC4@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.44.20121301 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [172.27.118.139] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D91CBD5B0AF446D5B69DF883BAA607BEakamaicom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.343, 18.0.737 definitions=2020-12-23_12:2020-12-23, 2020-12-23 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxlogscore=942 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2012230149 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.343, 18.0.737 definitions=2020-12-23_12:2020-12-23, 2020-12-23 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 priorityscore=1501 clxscore=1015 adultscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxlogscore=865 spamscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2012230150 X-Agari-Authentication-Results: mx.akamai.com; spf=${SPFResult} (sender IP is 184.51.33.18) smtp.mailfrom=rsalz@akamai.com smtp.helo=prod-mail-ppoint1 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Consensus check on Issue 13: Is decision making in the strategic body open to all? X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 21:31:37 -0000 --_000_D91CBD5B0AF446D5B69DF883BAA607BEakamaicom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 QWxsIHN0cmF0ZWdpYyBib2R5IG1lZXRpbmdzIGFyZSBvcGVuIHRvIHRoZSBwdWJsaWMsIGFsbCBk aXNjdXNzaW9ucyBvZiBpc3N1ZXMgdGFrZSBwbGFjZSBvbiBvcGVuIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdHMsIGFu ZCBhbnlvbmUgaXMgd2VsY29tZSB0byBjb21tZW50IC8gZGlzY3Vzcy4gIFRoZSBzdHJhdGVnaWMg Ym9keSBtYXkgZGVjaWRlIHRvIHVzZSBhZGRpdGlvbmFsIGZvcm1zIG9mIGNvbW11bmljYXRpb24g YW5kIHRvb2xpbmcgdGhhdCBhcmUgY29uc2lzdGVudCB3aXRoIElFVEYgd29ya2luZyBncm91cCBw cmFjdGljZXMgW1JGQzI0MTgsUkZDODc0NF0uDQoNCnMvb3BlbiBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3RzL29wZW4g Zm9ydW1zLyBvciBmb3JhIGlmIHlvdSBwcmVmZXIuDQo= --_000_D91CBD5B0AF446D5B69DF883BAA607BEakamaicom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <5087B739FBBF214A8D1767C99063DB72@akamai.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6bz0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6b2ZmaWNlIiB4 bWxuczp3PSJ1cm46c2NoZW1hcy1taWNyb3NvZnQtY29tOm9mZmljZTp3b3JkIiB4bWxuczptPSJo dHRwOi8vc2NoZW1hcy5taWNyb3NvZnQuY29tL29mZmljZS8yMDA0LzEyL29tbWwiIHhtbG5zPSJo dHRwOi8vd3d3LnczLm9yZy9UUi9SRUMtaHRtbDQwIj4NCjxoZWFkPg0KPG1ldGEgaHR0cC1lcXVp dj0iQ29udGVudC1UeXBlIiBjb250ZW50PSJ0ZXh0L2h0bWw7IGNoYXJzZXQ9dXRmLTgiPg0KPG1l dGEgbmFtZT0iR2VuZXJhdG9yIiBjb250ZW50PSJNaWNyb3NvZnQgV29yZCAxNSAoZmlsdGVyZWQg bWVkaXVtKSI+DQo8c3R5bGU+PCEtLQ0KLyogRm9udCBEZWZpbml0aW9ucyAqLw0KQGZvbnQtZmFj ZQ0KCXtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FtYnJpYSBNYXRoIjsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDQgNSAzIDUgNCA2 IDMgMiA0O30NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6Q2FsaWJyaTsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToy IDE1IDUgMiAyIDIgNCAzIDIgNDt9DQovKiBTdHlsZSBEZWZpbml0aW9ucyAqLw0KcC5Nc29Ob3Jt YWwsIGxpLk1zb05vcm1hbCwgZGl2Lk1zb05vcm1hbA0KCXttYXJnaW46MGluOw0KCWZvbnQtc2l6 ZToxMS4wcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLHNhbnMtc2VyaWY7fQ0KY29kZQ0KCXtt c28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNvdXJpZXIgTmV3Ijt9DQpzcGFu LkVtYWlsU3R5bGUxOQ0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtdHlwZTpwZXJzb25hbC1yZXBseTsNCglmb250LWZh bWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsc2Fucy1zZXJpZjsNCgljb2xvcjp3aW5kb3d0ZXh0O30NCi5Nc29DaHBE ZWZhdWx0DQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS10eXBlOmV4cG9ydC1vbmx5Ow0KCWZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7 fQ0KQHBhZ2UgV29yZFNlY3Rpb24xDQoJe3NpemU6OC41aW4gMTEuMGluOw0KCW1hcmdpbjoxLjBp biAxLjBpbiAxLjBpbiAxLjBpbjt9DQpkaXYuV29yZFNlY3Rpb24xDQoJe3BhZ2U6V29yZFNlY3Rp b24xO30NCi0tPjwvc3R5bGU+DQo8L2hlYWQ+DQo8Ym9keSBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgbGluaz0iIzA1 NjNDMSIgdmxpbms9IiM5NTRGNzIiIHN0eWxlPSJ3b3JkLXdyYXA6YnJlYWstd29yZCI+DQo8ZGl2 IGNsYXNzPSJXb3JkU2VjdGlvbjEiPg0KPGRpdj4NCjxibG9ja3F1b3RlIHN0eWxlPSJtYXJnaW4t dG9wOjUuMHB0O21hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206NS4wcHQiPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PGNv ZGU+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQiPkFsbCBzdHJhdGVnaWMgYm9keSBtZWV0 aW5ncyBhcmUgb3BlbiB0byB0aGUgcHVibGljLCBhbGwgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbnMgb2YgaXNzdWVzIHRh a2UgcGxhY2Ugb24gb3BlbiBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3RzLCBhbmQgYW55b25lIGlzIHdlbGNvbWUgdG8g Y29tbWVudCAvIGRpc2N1c3MuICZuYnNwO1RoZSZuYnNwOzwvc3Bhbj48L2NvZGU+PHNwYW4gc3R5 bGU9ImZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NvdXJpZXIgTmV3JnF1b3Q7Ij5zdHJhdGVnaWMNCiBib2R5 IG1heSBkZWNpZGUgdG8gdXNlIGFkZGl0aW9uYWwgZm9ybXMgb2YgY29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbiBhbmQg dG9vbGluZyB0aGF0IGFyZSBjb25zaXN0ZW50IHdpdGggSUVURiB3b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwIHByYWN0 aWNlcyBbUkZDMjQxOCxSRkM4NzQ0XS48L3NwYW4+PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Jsb2NrcXVv dGU+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpw PjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPnMvb3BlbiBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3RzL29wZW4gZm9y dW1zLyBvciBmb3JhIGlmIHlvdSBwcmVmZXIuPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvZGl2 Pg0KPC9ib2R5Pg0KPC9odG1sPg0K --_000_D91CBD5B0AF446D5B69DF883BAA607BEakamaicom_-- From nobody Wed Dec 23 13:33:05 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21D113A0C57 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 13:33:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1G8qFAdVlyHx for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 13:33:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lf1-x133.google.com (mail-lf1-x133.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::133]) (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 6D0313A0C40 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 13:33:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf1-x133.google.com with SMTP id y19so499808lfa.13 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 13:33:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=G1hYPyWY/Cp7DPb0LUEIzI0ydIR3eGQnRgUTt9TGAE0=; b=ey2F4fR5DcNOFMkIAlrlW2djo+vbYNid/eJCZHBn0dsxvDSAu5CJEUmoIeUuAvh0mD ZmYPqPz83ZLEKMsmU3+aFTtZ4KLHtwqgMxbvrmGDtTRXnWRCyGFJQIxg9aMSKX4sfUEj qXiouh8Ye9EsaPX5cD6GICiYs3riq92ANsQnb7+5P3wIExHBY0u06vKA9GpkSNKiKupF 943a3SchvcOHUkbVkRU9dIZMTmJmr8qv237lVzc2hIZc/LLHQFXpl4GsEBtcil3Y1W7s +tj1IQVKCjgzRS6e3jp6GgD4/FdhcEf3XAUtFLklfo5vWb2Z7DM+2v9lSc/N2iKSLQis Gh2Q== 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=G1hYPyWY/Cp7DPb0LUEIzI0ydIR3eGQnRgUTt9TGAE0=; b=caKX857qg7RUS+W+dd2Vcn215w8XXGQr60wzzUpDc9ce2r8um670xrL8E0Uxwa4sqb yFMoI+dMOu0F04LPcvPxT8VtgxTGE/gbS5qriYJOfaNyG8QCelzD+gc+8B1dHck+KmMb thYUO8ZMWbVlJBPkpSRZOYNoHsdan/M/L3RewN9JgKqPEqbdqxtp/SK/fpiad4m6awBi O/3JZlGpwBA+52G6wO600n+O5Yshwk0FgJHGd/cD3r6qGrGzHarkS/TKXB1la0F1iwI0 nz5a/3VVaw9t3fgcgXzqcRjVPvvlKWRg7iLyMLsneZfAV02lZyXUcvslFHIqMPgaE7zP vJmQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533P25FgTSUhn31Zrcvd9WyS1y7MIYFR0adIdmFWQdumCYd8A5cf NU7ZIOx+D3coaOVMteevb5tgSzGAZgInJcerq0eJmw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz8ZtIBDJ8CQ0Kpyv6EjVXBwVJ+NZB7DFOQ2uFlVlPBVK+takSJq9PI94quUe4PmLB1DSjyT/rPwkxZQVczgmI= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:155d:: with SMTP id 29mr12111263ljv.3.1608759178592; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 13:32:58 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <52205b0b-979e-e278-9511-e5853f9c4e9c@joelhalpern.com> <0FC1D91B-ADBD-43E0-9437-2DE9B85B4EC4@cisco.com> <056684f2-ab2c-5b85-4dfd-bada78e1e528@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: From: Eric Rescorla Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 13:32:22 -0800 Message-ID: To: "Joel M. Halpern" Cc: "rfced-future@iab.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005e996105b7286f04" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] quasi-WG discussion procedures X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 21:33:03 -0000 --0000000000005e996105b7286f04 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 1:05 PM Joel M. Halpern wrote= : > Apparently, you and I are reading the same words very differently. I see= : > > The strategic body may decide to use additional forms of communication > and tooling that are consistent with IETF working group practices > [RFC2418,RFC8744]. > > Presuming that 8744 was intended to be 8874, that appears to explicilty > allow the quasi-WG to choose to use any additional forms of > communication. It does presuppose that email will also be an > alternative. That seems to enable exactly the discussion you and Mark > want. I do not see how that wording "forecloses the WG having this > discussion". > The text I am concerned with is "all discussions of issues take place on open mailing lists". This seems to specifically exclude "Issue Discussion Mode" (RFC 8874; S 5.3). I take it from your comments upthread that you object to that mode of operation, but that's not my preference. If what you're trying to accomplish here isn't precluding that outcome, then I don't see the purpose of this text at all. -Ekr > Yours, > Joel > > On 12/23/2020 3:58 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 12:51 PM Joel M. Halpern > > wrote: > > > > Given that I will object to a proposal to operate that way, and I > > presume others will as well, and at the same time I expect > significant > > objection to a proposal that all discussion be on the mailing list, > > I do > > not see how you can reasonable expect that to be a simple or short > > discussion. > > > > Having said that, I hope something close to what you pointed at can > be > > done. There are a number of important tricky points. As it is sai= d, > > the devil is in the details. I do agree with Mark and you that thi= s > is > > not the place to work out those tricky points. Which is why I like > > Eliot's wording. > > > > > > The problem with Eliot's wording is that it actually forecloses the WG > > having this discussion by pre-deciding it here. > > > > -Ekr > > > > > > Yours, > > Joel > > > > On 12/23/2020 3:08 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 10:55 AM Joel M. Halpern > > > > > >> wrote= : > > > > > > So where will the working group conduct this discussion of > > how it will > > > proceed? There needs to be a starting behavior that is > > accepted, from > > > which the WG can make changes. > > > > > > Eliot's proposed text gives us an agreed way to operate > > initially, and > > > room to evolve that as the WG agrees over time. > > > > > > > > > Actually, what it does is encode it into the requirements rather > > than > > > leaving > > > it up to the WG. > > > > > > > > > Also, it sounds like a quasi-WG that needs to be effective > > and deal > > > with > > > issues such has how to hire whatever we agree needs to be > > hired, is > > > instead going to spend the first (some period longer than an= y > > of us > > > will > > > like) discussing how we will discuss? Really? > > > > > > > > > I don't see any reason this can't be resolved quickly at the tim= e > > of WG > > > formation. > > > For instance, in MASQUE, the chairs did a simple proposal and > > call for > > > objections [0] > > > on the list and resolved the issue in less than a week. > > > > > > -Ekr > > > > > > [0] > > > > > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/ > > < > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/= > > > < > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/ > > < > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/ > >> > > > > > > Yours, > > > Joel > > > > > > On 12/23/2020 1:34 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 8:36 AM Eliot Lear > > > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Brian, Russ, Joel, Mark, EKR, and everyone: > > > > > > > > Let me try again, taking into account the last few > > exchanges: > > > > > > > >> |All strategic body meetings are open to the public, > all > > > >> discussions of issues take place on open mailing > > lists, and > > > anyone > > > >> is welcome to comment / discuss. The |strategic bod= y > > may decide > > > >> to use additional forms of communication and tooling > > that are > > > >> consistent with IETF working group practices > > [RFC2418,RFC8744]. > > > > > > > > How=E2=80=99s that? This will permit what I expect w= ould be a > > step > > > by step > > > > approach in terms of how tools like Git are adopted; > > and the > > > group > > > > can decide, again, how to evolve their use of tooling > > based on > > > > operational experience. > > > > > > > > > > > > This seems inconsistent with what both Mark and I were > > arguing. As I > > > > stated earlier, the question of where issue discussion is > > to take > > > place > > > > is one for the WG, not for this document. > > > > > > > > -Ekr > > > > > > > > > > > > Eliot > > > > > > > > > > > > > --0000000000005e996105b7286f04 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 1:05 PM Joel = M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
Ap= parently, you and I are reading the same words very differently.=C2=A0 I se= e:

The strategic body may decide to use additional forms of communication
and tooling that are consistent with IETF working group practices
[RFC2418,RFC8744].

Presuming that 8744 was intended to be 8874, that appears to explicilty allow the quasi-WG to choose to use any additional forms of
communication.=C2=A0 It does presuppose that email will also be an
alternative.=C2=A0 That seems to enable exactly the discussion you and Mark=
want.=C2=A0 I do not see how that wording "forecloses the WG=C2=A0 hav= ing this
discussion".




Yours,
Joel

On 12/23/2020 3:58 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 12:51 PM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com
> <mailto:jm= h@joelhalpern.com>> wrote:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Given that I will object to a proposal to operate t= hat way, and I
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0presume others will as well, and at the same time I= expect significant
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0objection to a proposal that all discussion be on t= he mailing list,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0I do
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0not see how you can reasonable expect that to be a = simple or short
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0discussion.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Having said that, I hope something close to what yo= u pointed at can be
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0done.=C2=A0 There are a number of important tricky = points.=C2=A0 As it is said,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0the devil is in the details.=C2=A0 I do agree with = Mark and you that this is
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0not the place to work out those tricky points.=C2= =A0 Which is why I like
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Eliot's wording.
>
>
> The problem with Eliot's wording is that it actually forecloses th= e WG
> having this discussion by pre-deciding it here.
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Yours,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Joel
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0On 12/23/2020 3:08 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 10:55 AM Joel M. Halp= ern
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>>= wrote:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0So where will the working = group conduct this discussion of
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0how it will
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0proceed? There needs to be= a starting behavior that is
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0accepted, from
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0which the WG can make chan= ges.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Eliot's proposed text = gives us an agreed way to operate
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0initially, and
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0room to evolve that as the= WG agrees over time.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > Actually, what it does is encode it into the = requirements rather
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0than
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > leaving
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > it up to the WG.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Also, it sounds like a qua= si-WG that needs to be effective
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0and deal
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0with
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0issues such has how to hir= e whatever we agree needs to be
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0hired, is
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0instead going to spend the= first (some period longer than any
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0of us
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0will
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0like) discussing how we wi= ll discuss?=C2=A0 Really?
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > I don't see any reason this can't be = resolved quickly at the time
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0of WG
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > formation.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > For instance, in MASQUE, the chairs did a sim= ple proposal and
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0call for
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > objections [0]
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > on the list and resolved the issue in less th= an a week.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > -Ekr
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > [0]
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0htt= ps://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/<= br> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/<= /a>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/<= /a>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/<= /a>>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Yours,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Joel
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0On 12/23/2020 1:34 PM, Eri= c Rescorla wrote:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020= at 8:36 AM Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:lear@cisco.com>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:lear@cisco.com <mailto:lear@cisco.com>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > <mailto:lear@cisco.com <mailto:= lear@cisco.com><= br> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:lear@cisco.com <mailto:lear@cisco.com>>>> wrote:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0H= i Brian, Russ, Joel, Mark, EKR, and everyone:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0L= et me try again, taking into account the last few
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0exchanges:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0|All strategic body meetings are open to the public, all
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0discussions of issues take place on open mailing
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0lists, and
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0anyone
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0is welcome to comment / discuss.=C2=A0 The |strategic body
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0may decide
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0to use additional forms of communication and tooling
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0that are
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0consistent with IETF working group practices
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0[RFC2418,RFC8744].
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0H= ow=E2=80=99s that?=C2=A0 This will permit what I expect would be a
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0step
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0by step
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0a= pproach in terms of how tools like Git are adopted;
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0and the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0group
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0c= an decide, again, how to evolve their use of tooling
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0based on
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0o= perational experience.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > This seems inconsist= ent with what both Mark and I were
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0arguing. As I
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > stated earlier, the = question of where issue discussion is
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0to take
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0place
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > is one for the WG, n= ot for this document.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > -Ekr
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0E= liot
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>
--0000000000005e996105b7286f04-- From nobody Wed Dec 23 14:43:23 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E6133A0EF6 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 14:43:21 -0800 (PST) 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-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 BeimBRAResMa for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 14:43:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pj1-x1035.google.com (mail-pj1-x1035.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1035]) (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 DBDC23A0EE5 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 14:43:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pj1-x1035.google.com with SMTP id lb18so140548pjb.5 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 14:43:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:subject:to:cc:references:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Xy+kDMspfJDbPpz74F1B1DWomRSqC64JqsCI1M0DWSQ=; b=t4I4LiFNizlpVGndvuPd9h3jqoW4F0KQQ2U/fW0hkbp2EH6iEtqWbXCpHxfW34fvuZ uzgE+WY32oo2bN8LOj51k8+wljZEhG2dyCBGGr5NONTr2kozIuAY/SKBcykHPNLw7gu9 7pfyfD8laQZUbit7NjLZeppHyf7ax6084NOc3wTcLq8F+r9i4HHlxaDqrDr0ClN3hxIM Cx/G7B7aUCAj/7g7PoXNMOjzK1GKcz36LJnVo33CTkzFresM6znIJP7Eu04UvS9XtKts avna/udHdLStogZvJ19oK1j7aFI7lcgss7PNnHJM0plKhxved5J5nJzKR4oRDnx39YNP xUJw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:subject:to:cc:references:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Xy+kDMspfJDbPpz74F1B1DWomRSqC64JqsCI1M0DWSQ=; b=ZkFwTlu9zHZzXIp1y9U8piUUqIm+oeQ5TzJKoY0nS3H8hWzYIy+D4KCE8me9g38GY3 tGsyeZHAwmk41mfYa96Ij44Q5BEz8pAIWDK5M2PtEsrfjNLc0eEMkO9SOt950+b2abr0 PD86yX82kI+UtpTVNpJ1wYb5/Gla7UhZqmIk7m8DeUEs/fbC7XarGBPUoYKfNingSxPM oRtfGndv6+QX8ulKiMXnHxTD1eAoIilFjxaVMsFmnNcIH5aPJmL51ral42ecUOaqhNmG 3wqlTd4Tm7+cwTjiLfuV1g9GdgiBzpGrM2xQId3X4Ty8odnAYt6Q3Mu/Jh3ygApALzgr YCnA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531F5WGauGmrK4aKKDWedTaslrdPUza6Grh3HNXdFn7xT7BzoOsq XQiroNAXFGzxUvalMCtbl+ich2QnJyXCqg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzNWX9+2MA6bKy/gi1ngcyU6pleUvxD72XgkhQg1wtZbiJ+R0fpvbftphWm2nJt82dxvpcnuw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:b693:b029:da:e92c:fc23 with SMTP id c19-20020a170902b693b02900dae92cfc23mr5543792pls.55.1608763398844; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 14:43:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.178.25] ([151.210.131.28]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p187sm23167471pfp.60.2020.12.23.14.43.16 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 23 Dec 2020 14:43:18 -0800 (PST) From: Brian E Carpenter To: Eric Rescorla , "Joel M. Halpern" Cc: "rfced-future@iab.org" References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <52205b0b-979e-e278-9511-e5853f9c4e9c@joelhalpern.com> <0FC1D91B-ADBD-43E0-9437-2DE9B85B4EC4@cisco.com> <056684f2-ab2c-5b85-4dfd-bada78e1e528@joelhalpern.com> Message-ID: <6f45b06b-8e88-790e-52ba-f5aba8ebb3fc@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2020 11:02:48 +1300 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: [Rfced-future] quasi-WG discussion procedures X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 22:43:22 -0000 On 24-Dec-20 10:32, Eric Rescorla wrote: >=20 >=20 > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 1:05 PM Joel M. Halpern > wrote: >=20 > Apparently, you and I are reading the same words very differently.=C2= =A0 I see: >=20 > The strategic body may decide to use additional forms of communicat= ion > and tooling that are consistent with IETF working group practices > [RFC2418,RFC8744]. >=20 > Presuming that 8744 was intended to be 8874, that appears to explic= ilty > allow the quasi-WG to choose to use any additional forms of > communication.=C2=A0 It does presuppose that email will also be an > alternative.=C2=A0 That seems to enable exactly the discussion you = and Mark > want.=C2=A0 I do not see how that wording "forecloses the WG=C2=A0 = having this > discussion". >=20 >=20 > The text I am concerned with is "all discussions of issues take place o= n open mailing lists". This seems to specifically exclude "Issue Discussi= on Mode" (RFC 8874; S 5.3). I take it from your comments upthread that yo= u object to that mode of operation, but that's not my preference. If what= you're trying to accomplish here isn't precluding that outcome, then I d= on't see the purpose of this text at all. RFC2418 literally says "In determining the balance, the WG must ensure th= at its process does not serve to exclude contribution by email-only parti= cipants." That was in the context of face-to-face decisions vs email deci= sions, but in the IETF we've consistently extended that principle to incl= ude both on-line meetings (which are exclusionary for some participants) = and new-fangled tools such as issue trackers. So the issue of principle here seems simple: do we copy the IETF rule of = "process does not serve to exclude contribution by email-only participant= s"? Brian From nobody Wed Dec 23 14:46:34 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B2263A0F02 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 14:46:33 -0800 (PST) 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, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, 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=akamai.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 WWx14nJ-4REf for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 14:46:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9001:583::1]) (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 4950F3A0EEB for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 14:46:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0122333.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 0BNMinLD026766; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 22:46:30 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=qnHYPcC/fSHxIL17VysrmvmZy26c+IRSOumqLXEWZUs=; b=kJRLfi3PZeHiGQ+CCXM3pvZr3M87U6eAt2UARlbKhlIhShk4b/nH6A/3LfcmDMu7Tmmm J02pc6Vjy46KpOf7s2ilO9voMMjXi7OE5gKgMgXvhJMk7wO8hGd13SCyYCZRvJKP+Kmo UGt3o1mfqZv5u/ITAhWGZH/8MSpx3XuJYN4oiVvynNSqpXRB9yoH135WynVBk4MFF7kX u5E8mp/9m/Ll/UQYXmZS8rmcH4/PCD8vdwfXiWHk7lMyjfU+epSj5VCUtt69futoUxNg lgb98+zSiqPqPJrY3z8PPOsA4rsvpK3+MhumiAKtXMQfcBjBmBRybzaDpCPUO5SDUO9d qQ== Received: from prod-mail-ppoint3 (a72-247-45-31.deploy.static.akamaitechnologies.com [72.247.45.31] (may be forged)) by mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 35k0d6458k-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 23 Dec 2020 22:46:30 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint3.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint3.akamai.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 0BNMYDnM016198; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 17:46:29 -0500 Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.31]) by prod-mail-ppoint3.akamai.com with ESMTP id 35k0g67k81-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 23 Dec 2020 17:46:29 -0500 Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.101) by usma1ex-dag1mb2.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.102) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 17:46:27 -0500 Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) by usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.010; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 17:46:27 -0500 From: "Salz, Rich" To: Brian E Carpenter , Eric Rescorla , "Joel M. Halpern" CC: "rfced-future@iab.org" Thread-Topic: [Rfced-future] quasi-WG discussion procedures Thread-Index: AQHW2V03q9zGlQfT+UW7SEz8B/r3laoFb+YAgAAMFQCAAAHfAIAAAgKAgAAHbQCAAAiBAP//uF8A Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 22:46:27 +0000 Message-ID: References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <52205b0b-979e-e278-9511-e5853f9c4e9c@joelhalpern.com> <0FC1D91B-ADBD-43E0-9437-2DE9B85B4EC4@cisco.com> <056684f2-ab2c-5b85-4dfd-bada78e1e528@joelhalpern.com> <6f45b06b-8e88-790e-52ba-f5aba8ebb3fc@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6f45b06b-8e88-790e-52ba-f5aba8ebb3fc@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.44.20121301 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [172.27.118.139] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.343, 18.0.737 definitions=2020-12-23_13:2020-12-23, 2020-12-23 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 bulkscore=0 mlxscore=0 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=913 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2012230156 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.343, 18.0.737 definitions=2020-12-23_13:2020-12-23, 2020-12-23 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 impostorscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=831 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2012230158 X-Agari-Authentication-Results: mx.akamai.com; spf=${SPFResult} (sender IP is 72.247.45.31) smtp.mailfrom=rsalz@akamai.com smtp.helo=prod-mail-ppoint3 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] quasi-WG discussion procedures X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 22:46:33 -0000 PiAgICBSRkMyNDE4IGxpdGVyYWxseSBzYXlzICJJbiBkZXRlcm1pbmluZyB0aGUgYmFsYW5jZSwg dGhlIFdHIG11c3QgZW5zdXJlIHRoYXQgaXRzIHByb2Nlc3MgZG9lcyBub3Qgc2VydmUgdG8gZXhj bHVkZSBjb250cmlidXRpb24gYnkgZW1haWwtb25seSBwYXJ0aWNpcGFudHMuIg0KDQpJcyBhbiBl bWFpbCBtZXNzYWdlIHRoYXQgY29udGFpbnMgYSBvbmUgb3IgbW9yZSBwb3N0aW5ncyBhbmQgdGhl biBwb2ludHMgdG8gYSBqYWJiZXIgcm9vbSwgYSBTbGFjayBjaGF0LCBhIEdpdEh1YiBpc3N1ZSwg ZXRjLiwgbGVnaXRpbWF0ZT8gIFdoYXQgYWJvdXQgaWYgaXQncyBhIGdvb2dsZSBncm91cD8NCg0K DQogDQoNCg== From nobody Wed Dec 23 15:16:21 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CF3B3A0FB2 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:16:20 -0800 (PST) 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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-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 27QShXfc0Wvo for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:16:18 -0800 (PST) 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 585183A0FAE for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:16:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D1Tbj5pZMz6GTkQ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:16:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1608765377; bh=pOOvUQlpX0lRQApMbdxzYo+kL4yT5p72lwByRC8uzc0=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=WI3GYEaiAYf5jAswrnUkQZFx8/mGJShmFNm+84iys6voRQylgH1iHt9fnpXuhuCCd GujLc7xbmdXxMUeUa2zuwUDvAEX5xiySBtx47PJ53SFofl0f3nRvC1J2z8vlqz6nZ8 FnBezKAn6vop6/Th66rFkk1jbx+ltA1HrxFjSP2o= X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (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 4D1Tbj1p3yz6GTjX; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:16:16 -0800 (PST) To: Eric Rescorla Cc: "rfced-future@iab.org" References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <52205b0b-979e-e278-9511-e5853f9c4e9c@joelhalpern.com> <0FC1D91B-ADBD-43E0-9437-2DE9B85B4EC4@cisco.com> <056684f2-ab2c-5b85-4dfd-bada78e1e528@joelhalpern.com> From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 18:16:15 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 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: [Rfced-future] quasi-WG discussion procedures X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 23:16:20 -0000 This may be the core of the difference. If aissue discussion takes place in a fashion such that all github comments are also understandable on the email, and all email comments are visible and understandable to those participating via github, then I have little concern (in both cases, "understandable" is of course assuming the writing itself was understandable). On the other hand, as written 5.3 allows for a mode of operation in which the discussion is entirely in the issue tracker. I do not consider that acceptable for this working group. To the extend that Eliot's words create a higher bar for moving to such an operational mode, I consider that a benefit. Yours, Joel PS: Let me put it differently. Having tried to work with and follow discussion in github issue trackers, I consider the approach in 5.3 to be likely to disenfranchise me. If I am the only one, so be it. On 12/23/2020 4:32 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 1:05 PM Joel M. Halpern > wrote: > > Apparently, you and I are reading the same words very differently. > I see: > > The strategic body may decide to use additional forms of communication > and tooling that are consistent with IETF working group practices > [RFC2418,RFC8744]. > > Presuming that 8744 was intended to be 8874, that appears to explicilty > allow the quasi-WG to choose to use any additional forms of > communication.  It does presuppose that email will also be an > alternative.  That seems to enable exactly the discussion you and Mark > want.  I do not see how that wording "forecloses the WG  having this > discussion". > > > The text I am concerned with is "all discussions of issues take place on > open mailing lists". This seems to specifically exclude "Issue > Discussion Mode" (RFC 8874; S 5.3). I take it from your comments > upthread that you object to that mode of operation, but that's not my > preference. If what you're trying to accomplish here isn't precluding > that outcome, then I don't see the purpose of this text at all. > > -Ekr > > > > Yours, > Joel > > On 12/23/2020 3:58 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 12:51 PM Joel M. Halpern > > > >> wrote: > > > >     Given that I will object to a proposal to operate that way, and I > >     presume others will as well, and at the same time I expect > significant > >     objection to a proposal that all discussion be on the mailing > list, > >     I do > >     not see how you can reasonable expect that to be a simple or > short > >     discussion. > > > >     Having said that, I hope something close to what you pointed > at can be > >     done.  There are a number of important tricky points.  As it > is said, > >     the devil is in the details.  I do agree with Mark and you > that this is > >     not the place to work out those tricky points.  Which is why > I like > >     Eliot's wording. > > > > > > The problem with Eliot's wording is that it actually forecloses > the WG > > having this discussion by pre-deciding it here. > > > > -Ekr > > > > > >     Yours, > >     Joel > > > >     On 12/23/2020 3:08 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > >      > > >      > > >      > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 10:55 AM Joel M. Halpern > >      > > > >      > > >>> wrote: > >      > > >      >     So where will the working group conduct this discussion of > >     how it will > >      >     proceed? There needs to be a starting behavior that is > >     accepted, from > >      >     which the WG can make changes. > >      > > >      >     Eliot's proposed text gives us an agreed way to operate > >     initially, and > >      >     room to evolve that as the WG agrees over time. > >      > > >      > > >      > Actually, what it does is encode it into the requirements > rather > >     than > >      > leaving > >      > it up to the WG. > >      > > >      > > >      >     Also, it sounds like a quasi-WG that needs to be effective > >     and deal > >      >     with > >      >     issues such has how to hire whatever we agree needs to be > >     hired, is > >      >     instead going to spend the first (some period longer > than any > >     of us > >      >     will > >      >     like) discussing how we will discuss?  Really? > >      > > >      > > >      > I don't see any reason this can't be resolved quickly at > the time > >     of WG > >      > formation. > >      > For instance, in MASQUE, the chairs did a simple proposal and > >     call for > >      > objections [0] > >      > on the list and resolved the issue in less than a week. > >      > > >      > -Ekr > >      > > >      > [0] > >      > > > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/ > > > >  > > > >   > > >  >> > >      > > >      >     Yours, > >      >     Joel > >      > > >      >     On 12/23/2020 1:34 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > >      >      > > >      >      > > >      >      > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 8:36 AM Eliot Lear > > >     > > >      >      > >> > >      >      > > > > >      > >>>> wrote: > >      >      > > >      >      >     Hi Brian, Russ, Joel, Mark, EKR, and everyone: > >      >      > > >      >      >     Let me try again, taking into account the last few > >     exchanges: > >      >      > > >      >      >>     |All strategic body meetings are open to the > public, all > >      >      >>     discussions of issues take place on open mailing > >     lists, and > >      >     anyone > >      >      >>     is welcome to comment / discuss.  The > |strategic body > >     may decide > >      >      >>     to use additional forms of communication and > tooling > >     that are > >      >      >>     consistent with IETF working group practices > >     [RFC2418,RFC8744]. > >      >      > > >      >      >     How’s that?  This will permit what I expect > would be a > >     step > >      >     by step > >      >      >     approach in terms of how tools like Git are > adopted; > >     and the > >      >     group > >      >      >     can decide, again, how to evolve their use of > tooling > >     based on > >      >      >     operational experience. > >      >      > > >      >      > > >      >      > This seems inconsistent with what both Mark and I were > >     arguing. As I > >      >      > stated earlier, the question of where issue > discussion is > >     to take > >      >     place > >      >      > is one for the WG, not for this document. > >      >      > > >      >      > -Ekr > >      >      > > >      >      > > >      >      >     Eliot > >      >      > > >      > > >      > > > > From nobody Wed Dec 23 15:18:11 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FF723A0FB6 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:18:09 -0800 (PST) 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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-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 fAsXXrBIRDz8 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:18:08 -0800 (PST) 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 467493A0FB3 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:18:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D1Tdr0Y9hz6G9ZF; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:18:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1608765488; bh=hhMUGywpFzMxeERatVLiqC4vVIOu0yxoqwKTy9J6tZg=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=OkoTqarHo/lSuWBeGvzCW9AC4SDE/k74f0mjFgn97bl2k4aqX+qJZaXo4UroELt/S XJVAWCxZxjIN9VTaFJY0zkMh3rMVY61OIx0sZ1+uTeB1TJYeLJBUlNlyRiQqh8JJX0 YDiIJWErI9nfFeF6kokQG98dxYtAv80jcgWkwuPg= X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (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 4D1Tdq0Nhsz6G889; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:18:06 -0800 (PST) To: Carsten Bormann Cc: rfced-future@iab.org References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <441ca4b4-98d6-06d3-fab1-17455ff6d559@huitema.net> <0726262c-18ea-ae3e-c6a5-ad127dfd36c6@joelhalpern.com> <1A07F196-3DBA-4D63-95EB-F7537BAC73C4@tzi.org> From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 18:18:06 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1A07F196-3DBA-4D63-95EB-F7537BAC73C4@tzi.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] WG Document review body X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 23:18:09 -0000 thank you Carsten. Yes, something along those lines is what I was looking for. I am not sure what the right word is either. Non-voting is probably close enough. Yours, Joel On 12/23/2020 4:26 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > (Taking you away from the github issues vs. email discussion.) > > On 2020-12-19, at 21:08, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >> >> Having a review body would likely help some of my concerns. (Not all, but that is a separate thread). >> Even if the RS{EA} does not ahve a vote on the review body, I think it would be good to include that person in the review process. > > It is hard to codify culture, but the culture should be to listen to the RSE. > > One step in that direction would be to make the RSE a non-voting(*) member of the review body. > > Grüße, Carsten > > (*)Ouch. Is there a better term for what I mean? > From nobody Wed Dec 23 15:19:06 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6727A3A0FB5 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:19:04 -0800 (PST) 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 wn0eadEGY2gP for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:19:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from maila1.tigertech.net (maila1.tigertech.net [208.80.4.151]) (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 88B033A0FB8 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:19:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) by maila1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D1Tfv2fPpz4TFMk for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:19:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D1Tfv1w9vz6GTkT; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:19:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1608765543; bh=ZQ31/4enyGxomSDQxC2u+RsdYRjg0NQL+Jmw0DZ2Pv0=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=ASQxTgrOsmRTnCnRW5K38NN8J8Otn91YHdNrKcRHYbOG5TTPv6Py9mmGJ94HFqSUr B8fonspxRDsbl0FBQchQrkIk+CtXsS3WommstxBB58p7VMfBDa/M0wBvPHqnxvUzh0 Lz0gBPQoYjWk2j8xSfr1RbvsNkNuF6XbOF9PmXWY= X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (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 4D1Tft4D4Fz6GTj4; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:19:02 -0800 (PST) To: "Salz, Rich" , Brian E Carpenter , Eric Rescorla Cc: "rfced-future@iab.org" References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <52205b0b-979e-e278-9511-e5853f9c4e9c@joelhalpern.com> <0FC1D91B-ADBD-43E0-9437-2DE9B85B4EC4@cisco.com> <056684f2-ab2c-5b85-4dfd-bada78e1e528@joelhalpern.com> <6f45b06b-8e88-790e-52ba-f5aba8ebb3fc@gmail.com> From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: <40163f93-5880-b92d-280e-d54591129c70@joelhalpern.com> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 18:19:01 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 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: [Rfced-future] quasi-WG discussion procedures X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 23:19:04 -0000 That is why I keep talking about understandable emails. Yours, Joel On 12/23/2020 5:46 PM, Salz, Rich wrote: >> RFC2418 literally says "In determining the balance, the WG must ensure that its process does not serve to exclude contribution by email-only participants." > > Is an email message that contains a one or more postings and then points to a jabber room, a Slack chat, a GitHub issue, etc., legitimate? What about if it's a google group? > > > > From nobody Wed Dec 23 15:32:17 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 522953A0FC4 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:32:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-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 (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie 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 iHxfYOOojWs2 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:32:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AE143A0FC0 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:32:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85320BECC; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 23:32:11 +0000 (GMT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1kmOK8LpX7PF; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 23:32:09 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [10.244.2.119] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ABB22BEC6; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 23:32:09 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1608766329; bh=Z5/9wC3hePJI2yTJvJ/s+txvxKU5MaEKiTarSH9rC2U=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=gp1nCqP/fky+91tHOPixT5EEQGpfASdHbhW9MJ23fVFghgl2D7PhgkbTUCG5mUos/ pI9aQFqQYh3h+fX4Ep06k7Ssqrh5hyyqlCIgw6pYHq+T9EvQQTC75DNL2Os4hmCBlI C+wL4B8Vr6OE3DsMiIkMlSSFDXmPDnSqeIxid0iM= To: "Joel M. Halpern" , Eric Rescorla Cc: "rfced-future@iab.org" References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <52205b0b-979e-e278-9511-e5853f9c4e9c@joelhalpern.com> <0FC1D91B-ADBD-43E0-9437-2DE9B85B4EC4@cisco.com> <056684f2-ab2c-5b85-4dfd-bada78e1e528@joelhalpern.com> From: Stephen Farrell Message-ID: <176f212b-98bf-3ce0-3e41-396ef56c82eb@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 23:32:08 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="hRKpSut7vK33BfjmeEMmRNXIzvP6d6OiD" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] quasi-WG discussion procedures X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 23:32:15 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --hRKpSut7vK33BfjmeEMmRNXIzvP6d6OiD Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="RbRE17RuqnXnovqTepJLJGli6994kDr5X"; protected-headers="v1" From: Stephen Farrell To: "Joel M. Halpern" , Eric Rescorla Cc: "rfced-future@iab.org" Message-ID: <176f212b-98bf-3ce0-3e41-396ef56c82eb@cs.tcd.ie> Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] quasi-WG discussion procedures References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <52205b0b-979e-e278-9511-e5853f9c4e9c@joelhalpern.com> <0FC1D91B-ADBD-43E0-9437-2DE9B85B4EC4@cisco.com> <056684f2-ab2c-5b85-4dfd-bada78e1e528@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: --RbRE17RuqnXnovqTepJLJGli6994kDr5X Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------F57173AC26DFAFFC825CCCC3" Content-Language: en-US This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------F57173AC26DFAFFC825CCCC3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hiya, On 23/12/2020 23:16, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >=20 >=20 > PS: Let me put it differently.=C2=A0 Having tried to work with and foll= ow=20 > discussion in github issue trackers, I consider the approach in 5.3 to = > be=C2=A0likely=C2=A0to=C2=A0disenfranchise=C2=A0me.=C2=A0=C2=A0If=C2=A0= I=C2=A0am=C2=A0the=C2=A0only=C2=A0one,=C2=A0so=C2=A0be=C2=A0it. As another data point, I've felt similarly wrt a TLS spec that I'm implementing. Others with a different (equally sane but no more reasonable) manner of working like github issue discussion better. But the github issue discussion for that spec excludes me - I do not find the mail interface at all sufficient for real participation. Interestingly, looking at the mail on this list, it may be that the set of people who like the github issue tracking modus operandi correlates closely with the set of people who would like the RS(EA) role to be less powerful. I've no clue if that's really significant (or even correct!), but if it is either, then I wonder (but do not know) what it tells us about all this discussion. Cheers, S. --------------F57173AC26DFAFFC825CCCC3 Content-Type: application/pgp-keys; name="OpenPGP_0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="OpenPGP_0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc" -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- xsFNBFo9UDIBEADUH4ZPcUnX5WWRWO4kEkHea5Y5eEvZjSwe/YA+G0nrTuOU9nemCP5PMvmh5= Cg8 gBTyWyN4Z2+O25p9Tja5zUb+vPMWYvOtokRrp46yhFZOmiS5b6kTq0IqYzsEv5HI58S+QtaFq= 978 CRa4xH9Gi9u4yzUmT03QNIGDXE37honcAM4MOEtEgvw4fVhVWJuyy3w//0F2tzKrEMjmL5VGu= D/Q 9+G/7abuXiYNNd9ZFjv4625AUWwy+pAh4EKzS1FE7BOZp9daMu9MUQmDqtZUbUv0Q+DnQAB/4= tNn cejJPz0p2z3MWCp5iSwHiQvytYgatMp34a50l6CWqa13n6vY8VcPlIqOVz+7L+WiVfxLbeVqB= wV+ 4uL9to9zLF9IyUvl94lCxpscR2kgRgpM6A5LylRDkR6E0oudFnJgb097ZaNyuY1ETghVB5Uir= 1GC YChs8NUNumTHXiOkuzk+Gs4DAHx/a78YxBolKHi+esLH8r2k4LyM2lp5FmBKjG7cGcpBGmWav= ACY Ea7rwAadg4uBx9SHMV5i33vDXQUZcmW0vslQ2Is02NMK7uB7E7HlVE1IM1zNkVTYYGkKreU8D= VQu 8qNOtPVE/CdaCJ/pbXoYeHz2B1Nvbl9tlyWxn5XiHzFPJleXc0ksb9SkJokAfwTSZzTxeQPER= 8la 5lsEEPbU/cDTcwARAQABzSFTdGVwaGVuIEZhcnJlbGwgPHN0ZXBoZW5AamVsbC5pZT7CwX0EE= wEI ACcFAlo9UYwCGwMFCQmUJgAFCwkIBwIGFQgJCgsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQWrL68XsXK+qGC= xAA pYHWYgGOIL3G6/OpkejdAkQoCVQAK8LJUSf6vzwost4iVfxIKcKW/3RqKNKkrRl8beJ7j1CWX= Az9 +VXAOsE9+zNxXIDgGA7HlvJnhffl+qwibVgiHgUcJFhCSbBrsjC+1uULaTU8zYEyET//GOGPL= F+X +degkE/sesh4zcEAjF7fGPnlncdCCH3tvPZZsdTcjwOCRVonKsDgQzBTCMz/RPBfEFX44HZx4= g1U QAcCA4xlucY8QkJEyCrSNGpGnvGK8DcGSmnstl1/a9fnlhpdFxieX3oY2phJ1WKkYTn6Advre= k3U P71CKxpgtPmkd3iUUz/VZa0Cv6YxQXskspRDVEvdCMYSQBtJPQ4y2+5UxVR9GIQXenwYp9AP2= niv Voh+ITsDWWeWnnvYMq07rSDjq0nGdj41MJkNX+Yb2PXVyXItcj5ybE3T2+y3pSBGFEZYJGuaL= 4Nw tBJFMOdOtBmUOPbetS2971EL3Izxb7ibOZWDwexv+8R6SWYfP1wVN3p46RyBQuXqJV8ccE11m= 6vt ZTGSYgnLUUFZMRQYH+0hwuYe0T3AA18xDdSYsa8vovCCd3l5S4UNzIM2PMChqGrEzKapUpZg7= +8A CcxRU3b9Ihd7WYjJ+pQPCoWYKozvtEvenbNpE/govO/ED3B14e+R2yevRPjRrsN7PJzSf15fQ= LvC wFwEEAEIAAYFAlo9UqAACgkQLzyHNoBfjaLrSwf+MIHbFRQ4O5cmLYR5sIByWelN3SuRN/gW8= rpK o9OkCz6An8uV/iCXy5tNMLzzi0BFl8f22DwBcC5qy9qnlIAdogWam1qWoTAoAD8veEqmuKhYr= qJs CcAyNrKYmK0hP3rpHxx1LySDmKYXmw/8qtBXKHTouMm+5tSsznhykRMTAAr2p7PSaHgo+hIVa= W/r KSspHjDhhZS+G9mtOZad1IH29M6G1Q1NCO0Ywe8krKLQIAQlFxtgvOqpPOZNzeKBa/+KbE8TG= gMW rkOhC8OeEM5PVzdDhlhD9kPzB/pCKDF5DofJ/ZRqnDpbKPQ0bsW38AOig3kOc0A27awiBEw3u= rqR 1cLBcwQQAQgAHRYhBH4XCgRchM9GDit5oBDvedn9g1MSBQJbtyScAAoJEBDvedn9g1MSI/oP/= 0A9 J9nrnBMqZpm857lfYWw+rshLK+tyeP4OQeOqnDFvs9jePpcyJLG3DF2r6VbVKPQq+AE6Uf5hc= JBD EN6BjEhRPSbLcqG3A1cz/nNwm8rPmNp+oKhmaBBQGxwciMLmzgynsDydnjPpMyEs04zvsbsl4= vrp 2095o105l8KcrrxQrioFjbwveGwHQK9bxJKhx9D+gIk+MouBur45UDKTZkMZrr9FGrtkyXCGA= xvK dcNC5Oa8z9sj1rcUJfG/OpVAMWhArdlZbFUQyoX6pU2Zb1CR2qpWAVerGSfBhmfCyStjARqaK= xlf tjO+Bj3Jj73Cr5eqej3qB5+V4BCsPjr4RLvVbYUCPsRdxWc+nBLlfVYkRURu21g1hFm5KFPjg= Uky o1s4vjUOY8DyI+xLGF7f/IhUBG6l+Vswhpwu7ydalZkeFiPx5xna5NfbEYxvsIf71DvipGvIO= aHv X4egWoFgm8n/9c3rcMxJtpwHPSsUt5dgLsyu6VE0IbvOAc3dN7CWJ355DVFJq9Zg2YVf0izSp= yyz JeGsgkfjW6xpmdvZxuT2UcN4BTcm6vYqueASGrb3lfhzC5gpeVsc/MoSjTS65vNWbpzONZWMZ= uLE FraxWJzC0JrDK3NCd0VN3kstqGkVbUIiYOnUm8Vu4zoVMLlGWzHLIGoPRG2nRezn1YyNfyb5w= sDc BBABCgAGBQJbxcflAAoJEGo7ETk8pK1gE7QL/ApC5P68W5DrI1787WJVZv1u4t/g39vTr7Xer= 3UM TVQg10vpa7pmqOGhjIDzDMg3Pe3K3M7fVzfAlUA1qw6ne4RCueVoRKpubeF4AlYbMr0K6hNCP= jt5 uAxmbBVuejKTc6pru5rv5gKL0nDbr+Snft5xt7juBLSSimw0/41sZnkjCxo9rF/RA/v6+uWyK= 171 RKmsEYu8fFtw1eqUNt/Xj792TUixE3pxXheNtQtZGk/9P3W83ChhG4Fh5EQsn0pIh9wZIAbMR= Lpg RKyW87fWHZC8/YH8h7afarvn9Thl5pFUldCe22mNJj6KLChn2aEHQd+PdY1GBpZEcmNEUPuov= wza tM0h64hCzTm41eDqRfihZVBT7TbfXQnv8rywa42Mk756RGzzEZcQEhwQXZcMQUfxIQQ2VyJo0= zG3 6VdZTQF7TF/4Lz7/3cJ56jOIm+dwPXtu+C2wAQuD4USOLt4JWPYpqzDfHYJIND/497P9Z9SuQ= eah r2ez3DRBg3qsHEjBV80yU3RlcGhlbiBGYXJyZWxsICgyMDE3KSA8c3RlcGhlbi5mYXJyZWxsQ= GNz LnRjZC5pZT7CwYAEEwEIACoCGwMFCQmUJgAFCwkIBwIGFQgJCgsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AFAlo+o= 3cC GQEACgkQWrL68XsXK+qO0A//ZsfQzyXrZlu/eEV5jU620yeOM3P7SW3C3UQYdCgZ/TlvxGgKo= w5o DSXgjMiUyq9csGqbPBxlDYSxFZHNeDVKYIuP2ZK24tw5k6duTh4+sFwUualTMlcp0zBCIzn3h= Rcs RvuPKHfl5+6oOi0+xqx3jX/s/69L/fvHmdSKet5LIUAxoYaZkTCruFrPWb01tgAl5JExWkhmC= Y98 iD+EeiIMAWBjMw1xV+p0uCwNbN6XDzcToK7wsm+tAIiWUy3DpP60a6WbVwdV0HNt2WZq5U5Jd= h2k 4S+sN2CnYk4tTW7jHjsWarV3FLISCOObADZuB7ljU4kYfdwZ+WzenXY4LGlxGQSlAblGjwZe4= EIk CXAJUtzJhoFUuGaF/PlWjxqV3UFRcgTERZTijguVyREre8GNERNgvDxZvuXssEjvz9X5JfcIZ= DIJ pdzhLiEIj9noUbfx1SzB5KDPQj0O7elMHa1671/rwWcpGr/MfVPTOik4H7F8rcVJelceZTzC4= tvy a7M+jM4fyFWWt8Y4atTixUiP7U9o4uBZCQ0GzvsmFA4XLqn2pA5rVizMXnGbGOjufAP/efEJ4= ul3 qvjYe8ye8DXEDjKAxo/tuHYtk19XCi83QzFhWls5TT+XQeVTMEvVqo9Wek8yoxo67qvLKKqIc= G9g ivQd8MxYNAbNYgSPtkbhZ8TCwFwEEAEIAAYFAlo9UqAACgkQLzyHNoBfjaLzHAgAlWT6NXEGt= w/r 1miKNGcopzvzILQ9oB8rKI9U9EL6tOf/y2V5oYee/GyQDb3ZdoPxxYYcJf+RyiH1nMoqUIZiZ= Jaf 3bJXinDZ5+AdfE++UR2NBvqaNyC6u3r24jo1B/sagKbYtWgsYtRqHLD4IWi37MZrVyjBuF7u1= 4Q0 7+uhjq6mX2O/tHpCYw/Q82tbeTRPyUf1WQOAfD1kfBpW9PvAva5Iw9FWeXpCXRzwxnCZhYfGf= qtu Sw6CPBYLdbikqML6FZ7EDuTBb/8um1wK7Y9bgeIQC+CYjhYB5RXa1tDJRab2Js4luCvSR0w/C= gHw 26293tlve2Q6UTrmHxP5U22DlsLBfQQTAQgAJwUCWj1QMgIbAwUJCZQmAAULCQgHAgYVCAkKC= wIE FgIDAQIeAQIXgAAKCRBasvrxexcr6tJpD/4rrILH+meP07vrx8wW5eYuqCiPGYnh/CXxIF8eL= rfb e5d4QRgtq+w6UeQPMyzKRIRiCoBXB2oJLBZHyxBPxZlg33dTMrEGn8QWKx2iNuz9rZMXyOSWF= etu O01d/aUPd5BnbLbIyK5of8xCQlXM6KH8bc+9gQ7edR9mfLTdvBf2FR522hg8BRBM1imKc3vO8= v39 +qIHHRjuiwxBBCAOhHtHRsZXripS0uFA07dM46Oi/E8osjx6fQt/lH5z/PN+2adxYSrLSAXfr= 1oD 3RxYNhuWgyGFL64/VCQb1YGjf0Z5MBPnWm9jgUoOY5K9eNSS0L83WeJjlF5+Q/WOgB+rb49Pr= m2D Feo9+S9f2V53Llz1WIspXJg6f+n9lmHE94MfQj1GAHCzI0FeL19lvM+LhD8jJSCbhrC3+yoby= y/A UOs5Z3E+njjX1FF/VCVAs6iOa6i+XG+Y1hh3ir2y1kckJ5auT10MSU8GEZu9ayU4M3o3N9yxO= jao P0NuQ4MMLL/n/u4u94AeZaHPNBXn/hVfVRRmpRXtGKvJtFAEppGEYezB+bLKIm6XlpPkhnwYz= leL Z7AMEco2C6QM8QPB3g3JpS3sqRhA5rEP4lL16BmijmF+CHoPE/zwgKZbKpyVDqvIW5IDgvfIC= 2X4 pbZDRvGIUKaGSB4+ksZgUUnNyvfQr2p7jsLBcwQQAQgAHRYhBH4XCgRchM9GDit5oBDvedn9g= 1MS BQJbtySbAAoJEBDvedn9g1MSeKkQAJm44jt1kwHgQgeDBKdjdvl0AjE0xVEQxriZ6lP/l//34= YT0 auFfzsYIrChSpQXAEtobBAr4Ohw1Us+BZe+H5P8vm6LRuPwozC3SjwfX4Iec8+9ot6tIVg4sb= edD Sgb/CCFVjsmIGcQ1P73JLJTBJ6mxYCV/gn3QC6bwDOFo7kD9FDHCjRN8XfhHQ4Q9cYyt06uF3= 1qG /aumgWYC9geCGgAwiHgwxNYb9GoJ0iZjCROwbYvLTcQgsVUW2bTmsVR13UVKDsdl02sRV7qcV= YW6 R0a3Ra8KudX+nt25H5DRGd382KZ5W8pydsy/viTvD9z6v0ulChBYxAedIvGIClrhbxlLEPmIg= 4Im VOLGqsUgVm32J95WOjEkk4PEZ12xSDBtwhSJqmJNboWlfmw43KdIbY8zNhffIO3N6O7FsdGxm= qyH eLoTpqY+ySVUPpbuyW8ujnI/J//+6hdTZ9dQsEJQlWngKuWOQ5ma58MPSN88zllsqhZAFQjNx= qnk SzL6ZQ+v/jvuRRe16B80AeO55DsmbWsMv/YLLD1mSi7+Khy2EtMBhgojWwrGMvdLN6X3mnzNJ= Esc YyLxM9tSk+iySP2sLthK0BVgpAzBSdaf/ezIz60P+neHDzteNFf8Mn7lmgYk1amvZoJ29s5+n= 2Hw xyRL5dVMyMdyQmntubbctfqrZ0tIwsDcBBABCgAGBQJbxcflAAoJEGo7ETk8pK1gnCYMAJY4F= eIY jlIXGghFWzsB4fYwK1+iaFpU3fSto5qcrqVtVPjXpwqczqBWeXGyQxiB0kan4OVAXydIeaP8E= AuF CA7paP3s9STLJBO3KurkwyRkPW5zo0X7xVqaVToRsX2Ul98KVJoHYQD1KdezEtwlvpNwiiBr4= 2AY R751Vm6JBVAbQXuFpB3c8bUV0OkkRxNFtL8/2PieHar58n5dntGkbPlPkztahsFqktgacIgXH= X5v aT+7YeeZ1DWLOYjGO0wNhkOSeroCmxwJUikU7joBp823L7r5KfpqWTPpSCzVstQKZUGmmoE1q= Csw Y/Ud5wvp9SccpIILkRXj0rZRtfnE5MpL3hjmtNzfDd9qIsJtBJlSB2hZwAsVm1l+EWN9hG3tq= yA4 3niUMy2n6q690of3berSiQ+kvY/aC9Hx8I+bKzOV9/J2VUTqfaPZa4Uy2rVX5Q2p69n/PMj7m= Eer 0rCL3j9V16J9c+s0BSkXoKdtYdB0TWVhBgUybd9qtYcwHWvhP80uU3RlcGhlbiBGYXJyZWxsI= Dxz dGVwaGVuQHRvbGVyYW50bmV0d29ya3MuY29tPsLBfQQTAQgAJwUCWj1RWgIbAwUJCZQmAAULC= QgH AgYVCAkKCwIEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAAKCRBasvrxexcr6jscEADEcB0WQEZn2AkrzDs1RhL0Lp6cZ= i0B igofkbcGfdhJyMSs19C0dhvncrAFClVI6/Udw3yFtDyYtOCf2W3M3A1K6/RfEizCLzTsdFIhn= i9g OJLlUpXViQtgrlstjk7hqVV3Ooz4BlCqS4cG7rfqf4LQQPpTAuFUEV9I28FBUB2irqC+v4gTy= sIg pMw0bA1yBU9sX5jE/tRkzqnuzZrkwiobDtRFJ9qp+7O2JtcY4EsVtLAsaodJKc5cF8R4OvB1n= 66v xxcgg9Eh4JNWZ47xsaCmAGo1Bcb2jIY35OtgAL7gCGLRSMKTtAaPy1/fEgIqhCljJ9x40Fkn/= 3r2 BX21WC9HFSPFTBz2RluLRzxdgxOrkYK8EiHUPoE5b1AEzZKw2AbeXfr57f5zYsN3IqfbQLUjM= YtU N1wK3Pjb+idD972wyXMWt8uOzlI7b9Ocu+nYm2whBfJv9Pmp3QYTmPz+LB9lH65VNVUSxSXVr= 5iW XO3qx1HtEiGEqkporMQCTh3T5Ud3PvMSRBFFKNs9WhJ/Lxz+SV30WLwG6dr5mQqlzAhb4Phc/= zek ZyXRdS/oDKrBLUucS36O//49JeyRi1QvOfxnfmIqRIAf/k3PoYJmTo5E82//r5Qj3YGlRu78b= a0H Arxs+ACD6AnEHHcbswpbtVEKYzlSu0Ar0Dc7vRWM/IyQdMLAXAQQAQgABgUCWj1SoAAKCRAvP= Ic2 gF+NosIsB/9f/29FNla3BJfGIEIDnhrqGD0i9bSa89SqBd++uG06TQgW5wsqtNcrwn81yZTq6= XE6 i9VtD4GKfqC0d4KZJr9bnbeD81cI64VOdL8zJWJs0vj5EIXCobKyX74Kb4uePUyZqwT2Q74I1= 16u /HwA9/FXsPo5isbh4ZqD4t0VHpWkmfq1FPT9a/JPyX46qKqB2Fce/7Qy+SQP1NfkuUlbhUH/J= G9a SSYvk3lznNiH41x9M+FDlL106itXOubrl3oi2fT3fsSedq7uzt+IV0DQEeNaoQAUuwEhdB8IW= OMq N2woDjGVKJftfsSWY9ilZrnDBNDrp0vRqcx33LUMkIw4d7iBwsFzBBABCAAdFiEEfhcKBFyEz= 0YO K3mgEO952f2DUxIFAlu3JJwACgkQEO952f2DUxJjuw/6ApHSsVTWD4a0H6FJ23A9Ftpy+aXZ4= vYl zkSrfsn2ECrEfK3lXQh/uzwjJUDYZeB1/BQsFZtcYNQOJSSHbQ49BFRLwb1J/wBZG4bbmrkLx= nNb KDKQvzxEpclkMW0Dj0J6o7kGrmzIGGrhB+JJN99AcineHRug8ZSFIERRCmigxdhAKU0BFD7P+= 5HN HltSL3DF1c2fFOf2JrgBKVoE+9RhMZjWNbYetFFLCkjXb5Rpay9zeMm1DxfSTGAnuOwUXW6qq= 4hn l5+VC/48ceDZElLLfu7RQUZv44pkSTOWZs+iQoJiHMFHk9wPqyB2Vok1yJ2a2j27WhXrJlPwn= Zbg JO5RyWDG3p/eVmpl5Uuc2dsfIpR17KnAuWpghK6V+cyFncDoGCl/YG2MvoolsW08FiZh3Ej4d= nJj j25TZkeFG74JJDXLvMYpJfSBGnmETv4Dhcm2xPqVMuFuL1qJlMbVLrMo2GXeo03OzNyvbs+u8= WLI aGm5hC7N1CXY8wZs4jo6OJ/expvnc07dEuws4zT3AiWv3nIouWReRStZy9QkavDocqbyPmilc= dPC Yk4BsOlzpwwO74hNG7iyl0KdAlwTxGQ7y0rJou6HYa1TmRhIEr3vKvlW+JfUUrqtjXgsuacTX= o4+ Ira2JUErL2cYzQMq1j4r1ZyhFnuz93s7Rsx/Nw0+0YvCwNwEEAEKAAYFAlvFx+UACgkQajsRO= Tyk rWCJqwv+NLVPE4sD4sDA2/6Ek7UsRIUkg+S39fhqWsLc4rtw/mDunv8Un61I3K04fZ2Ry4nF9= hZM 0a710UvXFbStvrzRJO3EAAcdJR9LTCd19e8UeruQbIee3YT91U4NkC9JMpecfq62/teOAU2e5= P3f WYaLs5ZX7zCLwWuBcW2l3SyoljQczM85HhJ3XHm+FnwQ6D9xRle+lvWTcuC9d1yAyUb8IOosp= cL2 lJTmy8e3r79R24hPlSB4LDe0wEN8AXbagrcAQZjwyaHyWxjJbTwZ0b43WGdfIqZ1ElOeoffbk= etP GRmWvx5xUvb2ALFBBdETzV270gs5XDJgJ1SIIKOyDADxwvroTe2jD8C/841eEql5QSow3s/U3= zRq k3mttto8Qw/DN71aeh6dmYSsvd2UjsHw/vofOPRBGxZLEkKTEvMnhmMW9hiKPkPia+QgevYE0= 20q pKSxLEdWA8nprHwxmGiDNesCfXSC6vm1qfyj5g8HzxSckq9ZaMhKMCo7vxflUEDuzsFNBFo9U= DIB EAD6DdHQfMav8OXfhjTteoarOrlJTSdci727xiezGPuBHmpvceBRZgRasdbaMc4HJee+R9+5x= /nL PCuy/DxDyIjwIUeJNgc+l7LjI9WfpHTD8U4xxjvR5Mi7+ToQQUOUNuzT0O0pyuxP1uY3RehHE= hOV fBZO59ipSeZL5iQC6T5MsK1SKfs51pLa5ToC1rc8tBJ4zZmxRAyZiYc/AH2uZ/6rYjTTkAn1D= VI9 DYo2D/zE4bGjXdJW5pKphFB2lX3dG4I7ODi+5e1H6A/QpCu6z8/ZkIQ+9T1xcX/YwiFeA7PbT= uW/ eITbMbI1eV3+fyym9aT7Rsflmp31Zxtr+sZwGGZf00ooMBFmqOS//NUQ/Vf3vDUew1h5QU1yD= aWT 3NApvi+XWPH9TPy6TMfZA2FThHf11sX/gDBa5JWQZbptPEcmoazpiKZt91CrFPOaoXDPck/Q6= 1df mr/oPikfByYnASIM3OwEuXqyQ9JDRfKrem5r+oA/wxWb5jELElAhOpnyqMMvOh7uz1foUssL8= MAv 2TGXmxpVJ8Nu4je6wf96Z22fQ0D38zud+CKH3bMP3ayXXJBcdPoENrzFbWP5FTg/4TTDJ3vOA= HZR 5iCunYghx8b7Ffa4UbkwlD+dh8GiIAtvT51Ac0cO0Wc0Zjc57zPUz1zloMbf+zb1Bsn7DuEQo= qj1 gwARAQABwsFlBBgBCAAPBQJaPVAyAhsMBQkJlCYAAAoJEFqy+vF7FyvqrC8P/1tF6TeR83xD6= Mas qXyrBjwcLmziaF0Mlkj8k/YUiZ/knb53n97xQnh9yxPv0TT8Wpfdn3BmvqGyh8+ouHX9jMOxi= RkM dNhIauVYY/8jmRfBSYWcFkfMzdYasvdLtmYJgx252HKTFdeOrszoOjWjEzwmh+tca3AFMu/nB= ++/ KAmi5UJV7zsZ7uYJ5jm97LV5SLjNJIXXM+lHqCDrjDaDhNczmq1LCRlU6/WDjvkuwaVhZG4lX= xMD rvKnXMkjseQ2oKjwrIdfQM86H1z5J31lfhqop+of0cimcIsBgSCPu+h96LHuAzeRBCbDKeqrf= ZtA ZAGsokRina9947fRWxXHh3O66ILmXKNRxxWbDkPvYnQWUat8SbSTDoPWrDIGDRIAypqYo3pcN= 2OE 0C1chqgDZQxkr+9kYZQpupOAN2TR+fM7JvbO9coKI8Uqog8CopoMeDQkd0YjcqlB1E0svODHT= zcS oRzogDBYDqNLP7qVkNXpcOAXSVioBgiSDf7o5RdS/qmUyXBIeq6I5z8xBcd+BQ/n/9Frkm6K7= IKP 3ngUP4wEoiPx5ZE5+fPIScGmVUcZIMhkvMvem9XXh1yyhqN14gfjmLwPGdWbrgG8QUe0s2WeW= Iys s6uTiyF+ZbJSo2XOKVc3YFMVUUfgyudqAV1wWdZinUk+H3pkqOKoHAy/8fST =3D40Nd -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- --------------F57173AC26DFAFFC825CCCC3-- --RbRE17RuqnXnovqTepJLJGli6994kDr5X-- --hRKpSut7vK33BfjmeEMmRNXIzvP6d6OiD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="OpenPGP_signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="OpenPGP_signature" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- wsF5BAABCAAjFiEEW7Wm6ldl0sWGPK4nWrL68XsXK+oFAl/j03kFAwAAAAAACgkQWrL68XsXK+rA mhAAsJngByBFvkeFmSu71Q1MAUA9uj+egi4fvtlX/Hzq5UirRUt1vBJunx+dVGs4iaTNqZSzjimk F+kzXYr9qOwCw85ChoKEUixpKRSZ8sCQxh1CxUoEqmwVxdNzU5o2SMszET9Gewl+veO8JRZQtUcy 5N5KXgRxTOg3yRPX3fcHOAL+9nAHvq/wgRyi7j8xuV7rjc93frCL3heqQrD2Na2x2qXq/VP/on9s 5dqvfRwsUiOhXonRxkfQIGa3nbh06GKxjWL39SoXapjfpjTYSf9CuJ4G43WSj+KGsOg+c2WnHqNd SiL3a2p1wuQQcRyraTB6QkoZDmGHhGRupgedlrVIOtpqsDhYdYNwF4mrN2dj+W5iq9mCftD3TMqi DqIP6iPiRi9lC7skMhisJrlN6NYusYXdspP/44UIQKTjhFy+LrMxyKpcQ2sihKterPz9THm1EzbJ As9gN83DuTocfZEIOPO5CT+VZJCewhoDs8qluYvdDsmRsZeeM0za9KTEQ0rLDOw97jtU7VOKSC1j lg6uE3TmDjnYJtBTKIZ23n+RaxEFqlhA8TV3m4mhzQf039M9Qu7c81PCV8Y5uvTG9NSDq1nJTb9R Gla/p46gFTFr5dcEb8VupqiArQ4q6+iVu64qm7I1wzufklxVha7GTk1K+W+HmBk1Yd+UAx15bR0i vPg= =9Vph -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --hRKpSut7vK33BfjmeEMmRNXIzvP6d6OiD-- From nobody Wed Dec 23 15:39:19 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC8743A00E9 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:39:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DN3ni7v7_bVJ for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:39:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lf1-x130.google.com (mail-lf1-x130.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::130]) (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 1B0DF3A00D8 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:39:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf1-x130.google.com with SMTP id b26so1119483lff.9 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:39:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=BaJURZ0fy36Tp52BsAUQNVGnx4QpjIAiOp8CA3HQKWo=; b=mNE4hOpIzx30xViFfgWtWtGe1t8n2Oi5aHOdp8cJygnnncPIfExiTaTkqLzSLjkZiW tiKiFYAenipd41KjeZRrMiZfNxK/HdHNO1atH0nDALXmt0/EdFlebVjdeUSDYOclury9 2MiKCUan58lbNm2pWZ+aQDWWNOP+saG7kLOgEjakdTMeSUNqRfbZBAOaJcLIj83BthBL JsYmA7wRT3qsT0KggIMD8qGvQREFNe+uylzxV0ypXZ+5ZwElBKV198uGf+P5RpHGW0jH UvG6jgDVrW92xndDbzDOiglbFht3gC9hJX/pBVGxudUplTTUSKxY8wh1J+E1+vaDZ7hR 4P6g== 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=BaJURZ0fy36Tp52BsAUQNVGnx4QpjIAiOp8CA3HQKWo=; b=Z0w1IYciqgIiXKX1hNdfutaEnTlsyVXbekUUmjWLBi5dSuNcnfqcPmY9Qdr7Fk4gMM NnB6yoHdQ3P/AB4YW0k9o8uVzhsxJv+lprODHw6TsyitWJewjMJ+UIzLwXtnI7IioSRU dHMGFrJW2Mh0vEaxKgYtilo66A48zC2j8pne02UOnOkLLk8GOFQom5132ZsyqNvRRei8 LBtAvsTZIfY5ChrevoBEM/KAGe2a7B/mGl+QTLER8gOTqez7a40Rln75VRUv9XI/UPHd RRwWfKxTA0OICa/+poG/PtkZbafLUFuJtTtWQlqhX9cAeZPuDs95AjfmssmKoYcXAS2b UJUQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530u0M1AYvd0aA5+o3C2xoX47uRuJ596B6C654EK6UD/ZDGpEg4v uI+EEZtik+a9jcMdOAfmGBdc5JHyDjkNErNQ2L2aQQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxTwYJveEpMVZXL0qeQarNYLI1GjQvSUmqkLBUlOBXPyytZ04jGB2TWRq5D/bKqDfgA711wRBbtOts2/ZdU0JM= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9681:: with SMTP id q1mr13679534lji.2.1608766754165; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:39:14 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <52205b0b-979e-e278-9511-e5853f9c4e9c@joelhalpern.com> <0FC1D91B-ADBD-43E0-9437-2DE9B85B4EC4@cisco.com> <056684f2-ab2c-5b85-4dfd-bada78e1e528@joelhalpern.com> <6f45b06b-8e88-790e-52ba-f5aba8ebb3fc@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6f45b06b-8e88-790e-52ba-f5aba8ebb3fc@gmail.com> From: Eric Rescorla Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:38:38 -0800 Message-ID: To: Brian E Carpenter Cc: "Joel M. Halpern" , "rfced-future@iab.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e8a5a205b72a3224" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] quasi-WG discussion procedures X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 23:39:18 -0000 --000000000000e8a5a205b72a3224 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 2:43 PM Brian E Carpenter < brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: > On 24-Dec-20 10:32, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 1:05 PM Joel M. Halpern > wrote: > > > > Apparently, you and I are reading the same words very differently. > I see: > > > > The strategic body may decide to use additional forms of > communication > > and tooling that are consistent with IETF working group practices > > [RFC2418,RFC8744]. > > > > Presuming that 8744 was intended to be 8874, that appears to > explicilty > > allow the quasi-WG to choose to use any additional forms of > > communication. It does presuppose that email will also be an > > alternative. That seems to enable exactly the discussion you and > Mark > > want. I do not see how that wording "forecloses the WG having this > > discussion". > > > > > > The text I am concerned with is "all discussions of issues take place on > open mailing lists". This seems to specifically exclude "Issue Discussion > Mode" (RFC 8874; S 5.3). I take it from your comments upthread that you > object to that mode of operation, but that's not my preference. If what > you're trying to accomplish here isn't precluding that outcome, then I > don't see the purpose of this text at all. > > RFC2418 literally says "In determining the balance, the WG must ensure > that its process does not serve to exclude contribution by email-only > participants." That was in the context of face-to-face decisions vs email > decisions, but in the IETF we've consistently extended that principle to > include both on-line meetings (which are exclusionary for some > participants) and new-fangled tools such as issue trackers. > You seem to be arguing that the Github "Issue Discussion" flow as defined in RFC 8874 violates this section of RFC 2418. However, that would prohibit the use of this flow by IETF WGs at all, which clearly can't be the right outcome, else 8874 could not have been published at all. -Ekr --000000000000e8a5a205b72a3224 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 2:43 PM Brian= E Carpenter <brian.e.car= penter@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24-Dec-20 10:32, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 1:05 PM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:<= a href=3D"mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com" target=3D"_blank">jmh@joelhalpern.com= >> wrote:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Apparently, you and I are reading the same words ve= ry differently.=C2=A0 I see:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0The strategic body may decide to use additional for= ms of communication
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0and tooling that are consistent with IETF working g= roup practices
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0[RFC2418,RFC8744].
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Presuming that 8744 was intended to be 8874, that a= ppears to explicilty
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0allow the quasi-WG to choose to use any additional = forms of
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0communication.=C2=A0 It does presuppose that email = will also be an
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0alternative.=C2=A0 That seems to enable exactly the= discussion you and Mark
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0want.=C2=A0 I do not see how that wording "for= ecloses the WG=C2=A0 having this
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0discussion".
>
>
> The text I am concerned with is "all discussions of issues take p= lace on open mailing lists". This seems to specifically exclude "= Issue Discussion Mode" (RFC 8874; S 5.3). I take it from your comments= upthread that you object to that mode of operation, but that's not my = preference. If what you're trying to accomplish here isn't precludi= ng that outcome, then I don't see the purpose of this text at all.

RFC2418 literally says "In determining the balance, the WG must ensure= that its process does not serve to exclude contribution by email-only part= icipants." That was in the context of face-to-face decisions vs email = decisions, but in the IETF we've consistently extended that principle t= o include both on-line meetings (which are exclusionary for some participan= ts) and new-fangled tools such as issue trackers.

=
You seem to be arguing that the Github "Issue Discussion&qu= ot; flow as defined in RFC 8874 violates this section of RFC 2418. However,= that would prohibit the use of this flow by IETF WGs at all, which clearly= can't be the right outcome, else 8874 could not have been published at= all.

-Ekr
--000000000000e8a5a205b72a3224-- From nobody Wed Dec 23 15:40:05 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD9CC3A00D9 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:40:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GB1Z7PzwHarz for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:40:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lf1-x129.google.com (mail-lf1-x129.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::129]) (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 84F113A00D8 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:40:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf1-x129.google.com with SMTP id o13so1191126lfr.3 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:40:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=+PHufflRHlRlepyD2mHW2lIb7ANBbsOmjrcQYaEmo+Q=; b=b+5KrXYv+ZDjU4OyKbDVc5JHaSC3BwasM3PerDVvDiFWUaVODmkbdjY5oL8oyTZBaw wtTrGuBi2aZmyVWvmREhMFkh/chsTZBYrOs9G7/UrgbLKQBQqH2T8AsVvF2krFyoIXWW xYLc77eORp7acbkuZ9JpmtRupuJQ17S4HbxTvlhXZ+XJjnEVA7DAfQH7/SfUAlhf7jLw zZp6YAygWgAD5h+hD4Q4jlgbv7oKLuNYSzEoH/qjRqtVBrtGGxaXK9yUu91WlGHblWBJ 9KZjTIjdlR1ceGE0dgKoqSaqQhT5lGcH4frQ+lJDXfWWA5BlzCsHQExd9Ex6rbQfnJmO YdKQ== 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=+PHufflRHlRlepyD2mHW2lIb7ANBbsOmjrcQYaEmo+Q=; b=eUtc6NzZlrkLeLF1ND6xB/kScHyHsEigiI3QdQudzQa42QuOiEDoQoc4qq4LRir/mJ vTEDEXvvhyrfbuEVTE03zL0WBpRlfH9Cw1H7H3xmyPH/xkt+Yozv+I4xRHKMdTfo+9EA OCQuPHCmo6sF1NqhaEuZ1MNZXd43eC7pTbaQbUhTuw7R4RhMh9tl7bBuzem/bNpREJvW /IEpdvw05Vw9yxiafHOmg2ayxnwtNNjQQAjzwyZuup5L0bLWxSHfiU4me6CY6C5N9PsP /nSYJYrl9FkO7SqKV0PNXbBXbk1Pam2PItNVJn3tQe/e6aqpJxeh/zIYMuoXI2jT5Ybm gkDQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531T8BZ2rY4IP757gKV0sG1M2jk/6IQCF43hu8/8DMI5OHQ0ySSi lbYpKY25pSW/OgbztZLrNvCchZwYTBOdvrD2gMlRwGVWkEzFpw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz0ExENYxRqAjI3gixp/9O9AuCTEb1KhyruF1Upkqup9xAYLxCkOr0lynUsKeelHnwgM8VsdpScyUC5yyj+dBA= X-Received: by 2002:a19:58a:: with SMTP id 132mr11362296lff.355.1608766798718; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:39:58 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <52205b0b-979e-e278-9511-e5853f9c4e9c@joelhalpern.com> <0FC1D91B-ADBD-43E0-9437-2DE9B85B4EC4@cisco.com> <056684f2-ab2c-5b85-4dfd-bada78e1e528@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: From: Eric Rescorla Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:39:22 -0800 Message-ID: To: "Joel M. Halpern" Cc: "rfced-future@iab.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000090a2d105b72a3562" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] quasi-WG discussion procedures X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 23:40:04 -0000 --00000000000090a2d105b72a3562 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 3:16 PM Joel M. Halpern wrote= : > This may be the core of the difference. If aissue discussion takes > place in a fashion such that all github comments are also understandable > on the email, and all email comments are visible and understandable to > those participating via github, then I have little concern (in both > cases, "understandable" is of course assuming the writing itself was > understandable). > > On the other hand, as written 5.3 allows for a mode of operation in > which the discussion is entirely in the issue tracker. I do not > consider that acceptable for this working group. To the extend that > Eliot's words create a higher bar for moving to such an operational > mode, I consider that a benefit. > You're free to feel that way, but as should be apparent, I don't, and for that reason I am not supportive of this language. -Ekr > Yours, > Joel > > PS: Let me put it differently. Having tried to work with and follow > discussion in github issue trackers, I consider the approach in 5.3 to > be likely to disenfranchise me. If I am the only one, so be it. > > On 12/23/2020 4:32 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 1:05 PM Joel M. Halpern > > wrote: > > > > Apparently, you and I are reading the same words very differently. > > I see: > > > > The strategic body may decide to use additional forms of > communication > > and tooling that are consistent with IETF working group practices > > [RFC2418,RFC8744]. > > > > Presuming that 8744 was intended to be 8874, that appears to > explicilty > > allow the quasi-WG to choose to use any additional forms of > > communication. It does presuppose that email will also be an > > alternative. That seems to enable exactly the discussion you and > Mark > > want. I do not see how that wording "forecloses the WG having thi= s > > discussion". > > > > > > The text I am concerned with is "all discussions of issues take place o= n > > open mailing lists". This seems to specifically exclude "Issue > > Discussion Mode" (RFC 8874; S 5.3). I take it from your comments > > upthread that you object to that mode of operation, but that's not my > > preference. If what you're trying to accomplish here isn't precluding > > that outcome, then I don't see the purpose of this text at all. > > > > -Ekr > > > > > > > > Yours, > > Joel > > > > On 12/23/2020 3:58 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 12:51 PM Joel M. Halpern > > > > > >> wrote= : > > > > > > Given that I will object to a proposal to operate that way, > and I > > > presume others will as well, and at the same time I expect > > significant > > > objection to a proposal that all discussion be on the mailin= g > > list, > > > I do > > > not see how you can reasonable expect that to be a simple or > > short > > > discussion. > > > > > > Having said that, I hope something close to what you pointed > > at can be > > > done. There are a number of important tricky points. As it > > is said, > > > the devil is in the details. I do agree with Mark and you > > that this is > > > not the place to work out those tricky points. Which is why > > I like > > > Eliot's wording. > > > > > > > > > The problem with Eliot's wording is that it actually forecloses > > the WG > > > having this discussion by pre-deciding it here. > > > > > > -Ekr > > > > > > > > > Yours, > > > Joel > > > > > > On 12/23/2020 3:08 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 10:55 AM Joel M. Halpern > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > > > > > So where will the working group conduct this > discussion of > > > how it will > > > > proceed? There needs to be a starting behavior that i= s > > > accepted, from > > > > which the WG can make changes. > > > > > > > > Eliot's proposed text gives us an agreed way to opera= te > > > initially, and > > > > room to evolve that as the WG agrees over time. > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, what it does is encode it into the requirements > > rather > > > than > > > > leaving > > > > it up to the WG. > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, it sounds like a quasi-WG that needs to be > effective > > > and deal > > > > with > > > > issues such has how to hire whatever we agree needs t= o > be > > > hired, is > > > > instead going to spend the first (some period longer > > than any > > > of us > > > > will > > > > like) discussing how we will discuss? Really? > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see any reason this can't be resolved quickly at > > the time > > > of WG > > > > formation. > > > > For instance, in MASQUE, the chairs did a simple proposal > and > > > call for > > > > objections [0] > > > > on the list and resolved the issue in less than a week. > > > > > > > > -Ekr > > > > > > > > [0] > > > > > > > > > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/ > > < > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/= > > > > > > < > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/ > >> > > > > > < > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/ > > > > > > > < > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/ > >>> > > > > > > > > Yours, > > > > Joel > > > > > > > > On 12/23/2020 1:34 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 8:36 AM Eliot Lear > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brian, Russ, Joel, Mark, EKR, and everyone: > > > > > > > > > > Let me try again, taking into account the last > few > > > exchanges: > > > > > > > > > >> |All strategic body meetings are open to the > > public, all > > > > >> discussions of issues take place on open > mailing > > > lists, and > > > > anyone > > > > >> is welcome to comment / discuss. The > > |strategic body > > > may decide > > > > >> to use additional forms of communication and > > tooling > > > that are > > > > >> consistent with IETF working group practices > > > [RFC2418,RFC8744]. > > > > > > > > > > How=E2=80=99s that? This will permit what I e= xpect > > would be a > > > step > > > > by step > > > > > approach in terms of how tools like Git are > > adopted; > > > and the > > > > group > > > > > can decide, again, how to evolve their use of > > tooling > > > based on > > > > > operational experience. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This seems inconsistent with what both Mark and I > were > > > arguing. As I > > > > > stated earlier, the question of where issue > > discussion is > > > to take > > > > place > > > > > is one for the WG, not for this document. > > > > > > > > > > -Ekr > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eliot > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --00000000000090a2d105b72a3562 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 3:16 PM Joel = M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
Th= is may be the core of the difference.=C2=A0 If aissue discussion takes
place in a fashion such that all github comments are also understandable on the email, and all email comments are visible and understandable to
those participating via github, then I have little concern (in both
cases, "understandable" is of course assuming the writing itself = was
understandable).

On the other hand, as written 5.3 allows for a mode of operation in
which the discussion is entirely in the issue tracker.=C2=A0 I do not
consider that acceptable for this working group.=C2=A0 To the extend that <= br> Eliot's words create a higher bar for moving to such an operational mode, I consider that a benefit.


=
-Ekr


Yours,
Joel

PS: Let me put it differently.=C2=A0 Having tried to work with and follow <= br> discussion in github issue trackers, I consider the approach in 5.3 to
be likely to disenfranchise me.=C2=A0 If I am the only one, so be it.

On 12/23/2020 4:32 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 1:05 PM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com
> <mailto:jm= h@joelhalpern.com>> wrote:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Apparently, you and I are reading the same words ve= ry differently.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0I see:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0The strategic body may decide to use additional for= ms of communication
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0and tooling that are consistent with IETF working g= roup practices
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0[RFC2418,RFC8744].
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Presuming that 8744 was intended to be 8874, that a= ppears to explicilty
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0allow the quasi-WG to choose to use any additional = forms of
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0communication.=C2=A0 It does presuppose that email = will also be an
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0alternative.=C2=A0 That seems to enable exactly the= discussion you and Mark
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0want.=C2=A0 I do not see how that wording "for= ecloses the WG=C2=A0 having this
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0discussion".
>
>
> The text I am concerned with is "all discussions of issues take p= lace on
> open mailing lists". This seems to specifically exclude "Iss= ue
> Discussion Mode" (RFC 8874; S 5.3). I take it from your comments =
> upthread that you object to that mode of operation, but that's not= my
> preference. If what you're trying to accomplish here isn't pre= cluding
> that outcome, then I don't see the purpose of this text at all. >
> -Ekr
>
>
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Yours,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Joel
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0On 12/23/2020 3:58 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 12:51 PM Joel M. Halp= ern
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>>= wrote:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Given that I will object t= o a proposal to operate that way, and I
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0presume others will as wel= l, and at the same time I expect
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0significant
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0objection to a proposal th= at all discussion be on the mailing
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0list,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0I do
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0not see how you can reason= able expect that to be a simple or
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0short
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0discussion.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Having said that, I hope s= omething close to what you pointed
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0at can be
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0done.=C2=A0 There are a nu= mber of important tricky points.=C2=A0 As it
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0is said,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0the devil is in the detail= s.=C2=A0 I do agree with Mark and you
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0that this is
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0not the place to work out = those tricky points.=C2=A0 Which is why
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0I like
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Eliot's wording.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > The problem with Eliot's wording is that = it actually forecloses
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0the WG
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > having this discussion by pre-deciding it her= e.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > -Ekr
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Yours,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Joel
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0On 12/23/2020 3:08 PM, Eri= c Rescorla wrote:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020= at 10:55 AM Joel M. Halpern
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com= >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com &= lt;mailto:jmh@joel= halpern.com>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>>> w= rote:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0S= o where will the working group conduct this discussion of
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0how it will
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0p= roceed? There needs to be a starting behavior that is
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0accepted, from
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0w= hich the WG can make changes.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0E= liot's proposed text gives us an agreed way to operate
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0initially, and
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0r= oom to evolve that as the WG agrees over time.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > Actually, what it do= es is encode it into the requirements
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0rather
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0than
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > leaving
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > it up to the WG.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0A= lso, it sounds like a quasi-WG that needs to be effective
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0and deal
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0w= ith
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0i= ssues such has how to hire whatever we agree needs to be
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0hired, is
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0i= nstead going to spend the first (some period longer
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0than any
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0of us
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0w= ill
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0l= ike) discussing how we will discuss?=C2=A0 Really?
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > I don't see any = reason this can't be resolved quickly at
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0the time
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0of WG
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > formation.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > For instance, in MAS= QUE, the chairs did a simple proposal and
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0call for
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > objections [0]
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > on the list and reso= lved the issue in less than a week.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > -Ekr
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > [0]
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0htt= ps://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/<= br> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/<= /a>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7= HMZFA/ <https://mail= archive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/>> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7= HMZFA/ <https://mail= archive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7= HMZFA/ <https://mail= archive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/>>&g= t;
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Y= ours,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0J= oel
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0O= n 12/23/2020 1:34 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 8:36 AM Eliot Lear
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<lear@cisco.com <mailto:lear@cisco.com>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:lear@cisco.com <mailto:lear@cisco.com>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0&= lt;mailto:lear@cisco.co= m <mailto:lear@c= isco.com>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:lear@cisco.com <mailto:lear@cisco.com>>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = > <mailto:lear@ci= sco.com <mailto:= lear@cisco.com>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:lear@cisco.com <mailto:lear@cisco.com>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:lear@cisco.com <mailto:lear@cisco.com>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:lear@cisco.com <mailto:lear@cisco.com>>>>> wrote:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Hi Brian, Russ, Joel, Mark, EKR, and everyone:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Let me try again, taking into account the last few<= br> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0exchanges:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0|All strategic body meetings are open to the >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0public, all
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0discussions of issues take place on open mailin= g
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0lists, and
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0a= nyone
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0is welcome to comment / discuss.=C2=A0 The
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0|strategic body
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0may decide
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0to use additional forms of communication and >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0tooling
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0that are
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0consistent with IETF working group practices >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0[RFC2418,RFC8744].
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0How=E2=80=99s that?=C2=A0 This will permit what I e= xpect
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0would be a
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0step
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0b= y step
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0approach in terms of how tools like Git are
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0adopted;
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0and the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0g= roup
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0can decide, again, how to evolve their use of
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0tooling
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0based on
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0operational experience.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = > This seems inconsistent with what both Mark and I were
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0arguing. As I
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = > stated earlier, the question of where issue
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0discussion is
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0to take
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0p= lace
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = > is one for the WG, not for this document.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = > -Ekr
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Eliot
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>
--00000000000090a2d105b72a3562-- From nobody Wed Dec 23 15:45:41 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 217D33A00E9 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:45:39 -0800 (PST) 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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-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 pm7cOY8qsJDf for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:45:37 -0800 (PST) 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 55C163A00D9 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:45:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D1VFY0vjFz6GB02; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:45:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1608767137; bh=RZd7yvYb9G0h4a3OtnSIPEWdo4ZwBnJFVkHVK7dC9KI=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=ov/HHC1c8cM98WIN0G5UhDD3Xb4UVW54nz8YQIf8P7lC0MGXefUhScqdh6uNT3Rl3 ODJtnc2X7NXHWfGwWFlA+iAVRaOuaZ6Bac0uqCOG3Ak/4mROiGO4WRh0hW+W8D8E1h uPijCHe3bq88kAAhitqBVTTxqfTwJtqOL/QdgTGg= X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (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 4D1VFX4NXGz6G9BF; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:45:36 -0800 (PST) To: Eric Rescorla Cc: "rfced-future@iab.org" References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <52205b0b-979e-e278-9511-e5853f9c4e9c@joelhalpern.com> <0FC1D91B-ADBD-43E0-9437-2DE9B85B4EC4@cisco.com> <056684f2-ab2c-5b85-4dfd-bada78e1e528@joelhalpern.com> From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: <07aa9478-ca0c-aed3-8a9a-312a78172a5f@joelhalpern.com> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 18:45:35 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 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: [Rfced-future] quasi-WG discussion procedures X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 23:45:39 -0000 In the interest of making progress, I could live with wording that says that initially all discussions will be on the email list, and that the body can then choose (by rough consensus) to make adjustments. Yours, Joel On 12/23/2020 6:39 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 3:16 PM Joel M. Halpern > wrote: > > This may be the core of the difference.  If aissue discussion takes > place in a fashion such that all github comments are also > understandable > on the email, and all email comments are visible and understandable to > those participating via github, then I have little concern (in both > cases, "understandable" is of course assuming the writing itself was > understandable). > > On the other hand, as written 5.3 allows for a mode of operation in > which the discussion is entirely in the issue tracker.  I do not > consider that acceptable for this working group.  To the extend that > Eliot's words create a higher bar for moving to such an operational > mode, I consider that a benefit. > > > You're free to feel that way, but as should be apparent, I don't, and > for that reason I am not supportive of this language. > > -Ekr > > > Yours, > Joel > > PS: Let me put it differently.  Having tried to work with and follow > discussion in github issue trackers, I consider the approach in 5.3 to > be likely to disenfranchise me.  If I am the only one, so be it. > > On 12/23/2020 4:32 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 1:05 PM Joel M. Halpern > > > >> wrote: > > > >     Apparently, you and I are reading the same words very > differently. > >     I see: > > > >     The strategic body may decide to use additional forms of > communication > >     and tooling that are consistent with IETF working group practices > >     [RFC2418,RFC8744]. > > > >     Presuming that 8744 was intended to be 8874, that appears to > explicilty > >     allow the quasi-WG to choose to use any additional forms of > >     communication.  It does presuppose that email will also be an > >     alternative.  That seems to enable exactly the discussion you > and Mark > >     want.  I do not see how that wording "forecloses the WG > having this > >     discussion". > > > > > > The text I am concerned with is "all discussions of issues take > place on > > open mailing lists". This seems to specifically exclude "Issue > > Discussion Mode" (RFC 8874; S 5.3). I take it from your comments > > upthread that you object to that mode of operation, but that's > not my > > preference. If what you're trying to accomplish here isn't > precluding > > that outcome, then I don't see the purpose of this text at all. > > > > -Ekr > > > > > > > >     Yours, > >     Joel > > > >     On 12/23/2020 3:58 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > >      > > >      > > >      > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 12:51 PM Joel M. Halpern > >      > > > >      > > >>> wrote: > >      > > >      >     Given that I will object to a proposal to operate that > way, and I > >      >     presume others will as well, and at the same time I expect > >     significant > >      >     objection to a proposal that all discussion be on the > mailing > >     list, > >      >     I do > >      >     not see how you can reasonable expect that to be a > simple or > >     short > >      >     discussion. > >      > > >      >     Having said that, I hope something close to what you > pointed > >     at can be > >      >     done.  There are a number of important tricky points. > As it > >     is said, > >      >     the devil is in the details.  I do agree with Mark and you > >     that this is > >      >     not the place to work out those tricky points.  Which > is why > >     I like > >      >     Eliot's wording. > >      > > >      > > >      > The problem with Eliot's wording is that it actually > forecloses > >     the WG > >      > having this discussion by pre-deciding it here. > >      > > >      > -Ekr > >      > > >      > > >      >     Yours, > >      >     Joel > >      > > >      >     On 12/23/2020 3:08 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > >      >      > > >      >      > > >      >      > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 10:55 AM Joel M. Halpern > >      >      > > > >      > >> > >      >      > > > >      > >>>> wrote: > >      >      > > >      >      >     So where will the working group conduct this > discussion of > >      >     how it will > >      >      >     proceed? There needs to be a starting behavior > that is > >      >     accepted, from > >      >      >     which the WG can make changes. > >      >      > > >      >      >     Eliot's proposed text gives us an agreed way to > operate > >      >     initially, and > >      >      >     room to evolve that as the WG agrees over time. > >      >      > > >      >      > > >      >      > Actually, what it does is encode it into the > requirements > >     rather > >      >     than > >      >      > leaving > >      >      > it up to the WG. > >      >      > > >      >      > > >      >      >     Also, it sounds like a quasi-WG that needs to > be effective > >      >     and deal > >      >      >     with > >      >      >     issues such has how to hire whatever we agree > needs to be > >      >     hired, is > >      >      >     instead going to spend the first (some period > longer > >     than any > >      >     of us > >      >      >     will > >      >      >     like) discussing how we will discuss?  Really? > >      >      > > >      >      > > >      >      > I don't see any reason this can't be resolved > quickly at > >     the time > >      >     of WG > >      >      > formation. > >      >      > For instance, in MASQUE, the chairs did a simple > proposal and > >      >     call for > >      >      > objections [0] > >      >      > on the list and resolved the issue in less than a week. > >      >      > > >      >      > -Ekr > >      >      > > >      >      > [0] > >      >      > > >      > > > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/ > > > >  > > >      > > > >   >> > >      > > > >   > > >      > > > >   >>> > >      >      > > >      >      >     Yours, > >      >      >     Joel > >      >      > > >      >      >     On 12/23/2020 1:34 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > >      >      >      > > >      >      >      > > >      >      >      > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 8:36 AM Eliot Lear > >      > > > >      >      > >> > >      >      >      > > > >      > >>> > >      >      >      > > > >      > >> > >      >      > > > >      > >>>>> wrote: > >      >      >      > > >      >      >      >     Hi Brian, Russ, Joel, Mark, EKR, and > everyone: > >      >      >      > > >      >      >      >     Let me try again, taking into account > the last few > >      >     exchanges: > >      >      >      > > >      >      >      >>     |All strategic body meetings are open > to the > >     public, all > >      >      >      >>     discussions of issues take place on > open mailing > >      >     lists, and > >      >      >     anyone > >      >      >      >>     is welcome to comment / discuss.  The > >     |strategic body > >      >     may decide > >      >      >      >>     to use additional forms of > communication and > >     tooling > >      >     that are > >      >      >      >>     consistent with IETF working group > practices > >      >     [RFC2418,RFC8744]. > >      >      >      > > >      >      >      >     How’s that?  This will permit what I expect > >     would be a > >      >     step > >      >      >     by step > >      >      >      >     approach in terms of how tools like Git are > >     adopted; > >      >     and the > >      >      >     group > >      >      >      >     can decide, again, how to evolve their > use of > >     tooling > >      >     based on > >      >      >      >     operational experience. > >      >      >      > > >      >      >      > > >      >      >      > This seems inconsistent with what both Mark > and I were > >      >     arguing. As I > >      >      >      > stated earlier, the question of where issue > >     discussion is > >      >     to take > >      >      >     place > >      >      >      > is one for the WG, not for this document. > >      >      >      > > >      >      >      > -Ekr > >      >      >      > > >      >      >      > > >      >      >      >     Eliot > >      >      >      > > >      >      > > >      >      > > >      > > > > From nobody Wed Dec 23 15:48:35 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CACF3A011B for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:48:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QDn4pf7JbR_f for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:48:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lf1-x135.google.com (mail-lf1-x135.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::135]) (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 A51B43A00E9 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:48:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf1-x135.google.com with SMTP id o13so1224001lfr.3 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:48:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xfBy+t6Mf8wJ0samqF5mxd8CXXX9QT6O962PQiPhZII=; b=L6Ea4FdUdyFtJc+mjKT8/JWOzVvRynko2GvToQrR0BYKBsImM2vaxxl+bMA1gJrRo3 rNV/P/Nq7RirrhMESW99ta3S4L5/x3Oge7TEiLihf3lfCM3K7mT1VMj1b8tDsDbvsubL OgAmRsGYg6PmkPseteVK/iTtT8GWaXxYicod4fRab630tQi7OuopUWh207SFP/9AJbSh H837WnmgWjW/+DYIvCWeL/IDMvL4SJCZA9b1oEgNjciOvG2ijr7g+7oMW6mgUKKa89Sg tPTesk+Lpl8LrRFvIk214pmdr7iN5y4uzpepZJtP7hJMidL6T33OUJ4s6tt9/lM79/OS 2gCw== 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=xfBy+t6Mf8wJ0samqF5mxd8CXXX9QT6O962PQiPhZII=; b=S5YcdFIoJ3ZAlYar6vN4jxpV3kJpdmf9zXGRP+aq5ZWfvJl05YJj1CXphzWm2NdA5y 70spjTUxZpXk6EEzQYswJzKdw8L6bRCFNeBskAx+8yDUl6twuFn0UQKBU5KY5bzI+cm6 +ebO+zavvm8LnpqgpodipEn1vHDlbC+DWQ2N3qo54onc0AS8GpHeeYAl53KL8KLXARep jVN5sXEKmHXlegkYGt/MptfOei5z3G7jENf/C35gv6WvnJKYxuOdaO4MJeJdzgi+HLXd ph0/MpAVYQt3v+ZyOx/aVfO9k48rzF6JRpW6MbcMyGziBuOPbV3Csp72bSdMqg/MpwNm RH5Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5332YTTPkwi4xsMcjL6RQcdkFXQ0gF2XWSVcCstgswL/n7PVR+Fj Fs+zEUcR3a3mf53zWwLdA6SLuoy0odc0B/Jws/pFkg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz58orvv7uYHYRQZVVm64BbJfU1JWYkmTaaS5Pgt8dNhG8mRUeOBs81B6dMsGRu4sKfD/2RTUGlOWTZpYDpLI8= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:44ba:: with SMTP id c26mr11384432lfm.132.1608767308978; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:48:28 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <52205b0b-979e-e278-9511-e5853f9c4e9c@joelhalpern.com> <0FC1D91B-ADBD-43E0-9437-2DE9B85B4EC4@cisco.com> <056684f2-ab2c-5b85-4dfd-bada78e1e528@joelhalpern.com> <07aa9478-ca0c-aed3-8a9a-312a78172a5f@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: <07aa9478-ca0c-aed3-8a9a-312a78172a5f@joelhalpern.com> From: Eric Rescorla Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:47:52 -0800 Message-ID: To: "Joel M. Halpern" Cc: "rfced-future@iab.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fa73d305b72a5380" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] quasi-WG discussion procedures X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 23:48:34 -0000 --000000000000fa73d305b72a5380 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable That works for me. -Ekr On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 3:45 PM Joel M. Halpern wrote= : > In the interest of making progress, I could live with wording that says > that initially all discussions will be on the email list, and that the > body can then choose (by rough consensus) to make adjustments. > > Yours, > Joel > > > On 12/23/2020 6:39 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 3:16 PM Joel M. Halpern > > wrote: > > > > This may be the core of the difference. If aissue discussion takes > > place in a fashion such that all github comments are also > > understandable > > on the email, and all email comments are visible and understandable > to > > those participating via github, then I have little concern (in both > > cases, "understandable" is of course assuming the writing itself wa= s > > understandable). > > > > On the other hand, as written 5.3 allows for a mode of operation in > > which the discussion is entirely in the issue tracker. I do not > > consider that acceptable for this working group. To the extend tha= t > > Eliot's words create a higher bar for moving to such an operational > > mode, I consider that a benefit. > > > > > > You're free to feel that way, but as should be apparent, I don't, and > > for that reason I am not supportive of this language. > > > > -Ekr > > > > > > Yours, > > Joel > > > > PS: Let me put it differently. Having tried to work with and follo= w > > discussion in github issue trackers, I consider the approach in 5.3 > to > > be likely to disenfranchise me. If I am the only one, so be it. > > > > On 12/23/2020 4:32 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 1:05 PM Joel M. Halpern > > > > > >> wrote= : > > > > > > Apparently, you and I are reading the same words very > > differently. > > > I see: > > > > > > The strategic body may decide to use additional forms of > > communication > > > and tooling that are consistent with IETF working group > practices > > > [RFC2418,RFC8744]. > > > > > > Presuming that 8744 was intended to be 8874, that appears to > > explicilty > > > allow the quasi-WG to choose to use any additional forms of > > > communication. It does presuppose that email will also be a= n > > > alternative. That seems to enable exactly the discussion yo= u > > and Mark > > > want. I do not see how that wording "forecloses the WG > > having this > > > discussion". > > > > > > > > > The text I am concerned with is "all discussions of issues take > > place on > > > open mailing lists". This seems to specifically exclude "Issue > > > Discussion Mode" (RFC 8874; S 5.3). I take it from your comments > > > upthread that you object to that mode of operation, but that's > > not my > > > preference. If what you're trying to accomplish here isn't > > precluding > > > that outcome, then I don't see the purpose of this text at all. > > > > > > -Ekr > > > > > > > > > > > > Yours, > > > Joel > > > > > > On 12/23/2020 3:58 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 12:51 PM Joel M. Halpern > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > > > > > Given that I will object to a proposal to operate tha= t > > way, and I > > > > presume others will as well, and at the same time I > expect > > > significant > > > > objection to a proposal that all discussion be on the > > mailing > > > list, > > > > I do > > > > not see how you can reasonable expect that to be a > > simple or > > > short > > > > discussion. > > > > > > > > Having said that, I hope something close to what you > > pointed > > > at can be > > > > done. There are a number of important tricky points. > > As it > > > is said, > > > > the devil is in the details. I do agree with Mark an= d > you > > > that this is > > > > not the place to work out those tricky points. Which > > is why > > > I like > > > > Eliot's wording. > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem with Eliot's wording is that it actually > > forecloses > > > the WG > > > > having this discussion by pre-deciding it here. > > > > > > > > -Ekr > > > > > > > > > > > > Yours, > > > > Joel > > > > > > > > On 12/23/2020 3:08 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 10:55 AM Joel M. Halpern > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > So where will the working group conduct this > > discussion of > > > > how it will > > > > > proceed? There needs to be a starting behavior > > that is > > > > accepted, from > > > > > which the WG can make changes. > > > > > > > > > > Eliot's proposed text gives us an agreed way t= o > > operate > > > > initially, and > > > > > room to evolve that as the WG agrees over time= . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, what it does is encode it into the > > requirements > > > rather > > > > than > > > > > leaving > > > > > it up to the WG. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, it sounds like a quasi-WG that needs to > > be effective > > > > and deal > > > > > with > > > > > issues such has how to hire whatever we agree > > needs to be > > > > hired, is > > > > > instead going to spend the first (some period > > longer > > > than any > > > > of us > > > > > will > > > > > like) discussing how we will discuss? Really? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see any reason this can't be resolved > > quickly at > > > the time > > > > of WG > > > > > formation. > > > > > For instance, in MASQUE, the chairs did a simple > > proposal and > > > > call for > > > > > objections [0] > > > > > on the list and resolved the issue in less than a > week. > > > > > > > > > > -Ekr > > > > > > > > > > [0] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/ > > < > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/= > > > > > > < > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/ > >> > > > > > > > > > < > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/ > > >>> > > > > > > > > > < > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/ > > >> > > > > > > > > > < > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/ > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > Yours, > > > > > Joel > > > > > > > > > > On 12/23/2020 1:34 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 8:36 AM Eliot Lear > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > lear@cisco.com>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brian, Russ, Joel, Mark, EKR, and > > everyone: > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me try again, taking into account > > the last few > > > > exchanges: > > > > > > > > > > > >> |All strategic body meetings are open > > to the > > > public, all > > > > > >> discussions of issues take place on > > open mailing > > > > lists, and > > > > > anyone > > > > > >> is welcome to comment / discuss. The > > > |strategic body > > > > may decide > > > > > >> to use additional forms of > > communication and > > > tooling > > > > that are > > > > > >> consistent with IETF working group > > practices > > > > [RFC2418,RFC8744]. > > > > > > > > > > > > How=E2=80=99s that? This will permit w= hat I > expect > > > would be a > > > > step > > > > > by step > > > > > > approach in terms of how tools like Git > are > > > adopted; > > > > and the > > > > > group > > > > > > can decide, again, how to evolve their > > use of > > > tooling > > > > based on > > > > > > operational experience. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This seems inconsistent with what both Mark > > and I were > > > > arguing. As I > > > > > > stated earlier, the question of where issue > > > discussion is > > > > to take > > > > > place > > > > > > is one for the WG, not for this document. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Ekr > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eliot > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --000000000000fa73d305b72a5380 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
That works for me.

-Ekr<= /div>


On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 3:45 PM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
<= /div>
In the interest of m= aking progress, I could live with wording that says
that initially all discussions will be on the email list, and that the
body can then choose (by rough consensus) to make adjustments.

Yours,
Joel


On 12/23/2020 6:39 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 3:16 PM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com
> <mailto:jm= h@joelhalpern.com>> wrote:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0This may be the core of the difference.=C2=A0 If ai= ssue discussion takes
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0place in a fashion such that all github comments ar= e also
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0understandable
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0on the email, and all email comments are visible an= d understandable to
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0those participating via github, then I have little = concern (in both
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0cases, "understandable" is of course assu= ming the writing itself was
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0understandable).
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0On the other hand, as written 5.3 allows for a mode= of operation in
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0which the discussion is entirely in the issue track= er.=C2=A0 I do not
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0consider that acceptable for this working group.=C2= =A0 To the extend that
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Eliot's words create a higher bar for moving to= such an operational
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0mode, I consider that a benefit.
>
>
> You're free to feel that way, but as should be apparent, I don'= ;t, and
> for that reason I am not supportive of this language.
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Yours,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Joel
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0PS: Let me put it differently.=C2=A0 Having tried t= o work with and follow
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0discussion in github issue trackers, I consider the= approach in 5.3 to
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0be likely to disenfranchise me.=C2=A0 If I am the o= nly one, so be it.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0On 12/23/2020 4:32 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 1:05 PM Joel M. Halpe= rn
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>>= wrote:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Apparently, you and I are = reading the same words very
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0differently.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0I see:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0The strategic body may dec= ide to use additional forms of
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0communication
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0and tooling that are consi= stent with IETF working group practices
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0[RFC2418,RFC8744].
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Presuming that 8744 was in= tended to be 8874, that appears to
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0explicilty
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0allow the quasi-WG to choo= se to use any additional forms of
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0communication.=C2=A0 It do= es presuppose that email will also be an
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0alternative.=C2=A0 That se= ems to enable exactly the discussion you
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0and Mark
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0want.=C2=A0 I do not see h= ow that wording "forecloses the WG
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0having this
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0discussion".
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > The text I am concerned with is "all dis= cussions of issues take
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0place on
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > open mailing lists". This seems to speci= fically exclude "Issue
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > Discussion Mode" (RFC 8874; S 5.3). I ta= ke it from your comments
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > upthread that you object to that mode of oper= ation, but that's
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0not my
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > preference. If what you're trying to acco= mplish here isn't
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0precluding
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > that outcome, then I don't see the purpos= e of this text at all.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > -Ekr
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Yours,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Joel
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0On 12/23/2020 3:58 PM, Eri= c Rescorla wrote:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020= at 12:51 PM Joel M. Halpern
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com= >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com &= lt;mailto:jmh@joel= halpern.com>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>>> w= rote:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0G= iven that I will object to a proposal to operate that
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0way, and I
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0p= resume others will as well, and at the same time I expect
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0significant
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0o= bjection to a proposal that all discussion be on the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0mailing
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0list,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0I= do
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0n= ot see how you can reasonable expect that to be a
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0simple or
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0short
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0d= iscussion.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0H= aving said that, I hope something close to what you
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0pointed
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0at can be
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0d= one.=C2=A0 There are a number of important tricky points.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0As it
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0is said,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0t= he devil is in the details.=C2=A0 I do agree with Mark and you
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0that this is
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0n= ot the place to work out those tricky points.=C2=A0 Which
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0is why
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0I like
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0E= liot's wording.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > The problem with Eli= ot's wording is that it actually
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0forecloses
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0the WG
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > having this discussi= on by pre-deciding it here.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > -Ekr
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Y= ours,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0J= oel
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0O= n 12/23/2020 3:08 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 10:55 AM Joel M. Halpern
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0&= lt;jmh@joelhalpern= .com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailt= o:jmh@joelhalpern.= com>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = > <mailto:jm= h@joelhalpern.com
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailt= o:jmh@joelhalpern.= com>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>>>&g= t; wrote:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0So where will the working group conduct this
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0discussion of
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0h= ow it will
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0proceed? There needs to be a starting behavior
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0that is
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0a= ccepted, from
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0which the WG can make changes.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Eliot's proposed text gives us an agreed way to=
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0operate
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0i= nitially, and
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0room to evolve that as the WG agrees over time.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = > Actually, what it does is encode it into the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0requirements
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0rather
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0t= han
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = > leaving
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = > it up to the WG.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Also, it sounds like a quasi-WG that needs to
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0be effective
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0a= nd deal
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0with
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0issues such has how to hire whatever we agree
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0needs to be
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0h= ired, is
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0instead going to spend the first (some period
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0longer
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0than any
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0o= f us
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0will
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0like) discussing how we will discuss?=C2=A0 Really?=
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = > I don't see any reason this can't be resolved
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0quickly at
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0the time
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0o= f WG
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = > formation.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = > For instance, in MASQUE, the chairs did a simple
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0proposal and
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0c= all for
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = > objections [0]
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = > on the list and resolved the issue in less than a week.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = > -Ekr
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = > [0]
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0htt= ps://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/<= br> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/<= /a>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7= HMZFA/ <https://mail= archive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/>> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7= HMZFA/ <https://mail= archive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/> <<= a href=3D"https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQoh= l7HMZFA/" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://mailarchive.ietf.org= /arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/ <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnR= usjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/>>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7= HMZFA/ <https://mail= archive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/> <<= a href=3D"https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQoh= l7HMZFA/" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://mailarchive.ietf.org= /arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/ <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnR= usjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7= HMZFA/ <https://mail= archive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/> <<= a href=3D"https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQoh= l7HMZFA/" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://mailarchive.ietf.org= /arch/msg/masque/QnRusjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/ <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/masque/QnR= usjudrxbwVMowcQohl7HMZFA/>>>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Yours,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Joel
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0On 12/23/2020 1:34 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 8:36 AM Eliot Lear >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<lear@cisco.com <mailto:lear@cisco.com>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:lear@cisco.com <mailto:lear@cisco.com>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0&= lt;mailto:lear@cisco.co= m <mailto:lear@c= isco.com>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:lear@cisco.com <mailto:lear@cisco.com>>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:lear@cisco.com <mailto:lear@cisco.com>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:lear@cisco.com <mailto:lear@cisco.com>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:lear@cisco.com <mailto:lear@cisco.com>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:lear@cisco.com <mailto:lear@cisco.com>>>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > <mailto:lear@cisco.com
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:lear@cisco.com> <mailto:lear@cisco.com <mailto:lear@cisco.com>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:lear@cisco.com <mailto:lear@cisco.com>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:lear@cisco.com <mailto:lear@cisco.com>>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0&= lt;mailto:lear@cisco.co= m <mailto:lear@c= isco.com>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:lear@cisco.com <mailto:lear@cisco.com>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:lear@cisco.com <mailto:lear@cisco.com>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:lear@cisco.com <mailto:lear@cisco.com>>>>>> wrote:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Hi Brian, Russ, Joel, Mark= , EKR, and
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0everyone:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Let me try again, taking i= nto account
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0the last few
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0e= xchanges:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0|All strategic body me= etings are open
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0to the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0public, all
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0discussions of issues = take place on
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0open mailing
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0l= ists, and
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0anyone
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0is welcome to comment = / discuss.=C2=A0 The
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0|strategic body
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0m= ay decide
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0to use additional form= s of
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0communication and
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0tooling
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0t= hat are
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0consistent with IETF w= orking group
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0practices
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0[= RFC2418,RFC8744].
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0How=E2=80=99s that?=C2=A0 = This will permit what I expect
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0would be a
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0s= tep
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0by step
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0approach in terms of how t= ools like Git are
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0adopted;
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0a= nd the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0group
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0can decide, again, how to = evolve their
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0use of
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0tooling
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0b= ased on
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0operational experience. >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > This seems inconsistent with what both Mark >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0and I were
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0a= rguing. As I
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > stated earlier, the question of where issue >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0discussion is
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0t= o take
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0place
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > is one for the WG, not for this document.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > -Ekr
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Eliot
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>
--000000000000fa73d305b72a5380-- From nobody Wed Dec 23 16:47:04 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D888B3A0962 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 16:47:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n767JHIQpR7N for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 16:47:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lf1-x132.google.com (mail-lf1-x132.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::132]) (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 1B5353A094E for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 16:47:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf1-x132.google.com with SMTP id b26so1387155lff.9 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 16:47:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=mMXv99jOfONi2HSyhAb0DB9KR0OBF9jsBZlJoEzIprA=; b=ijvLTfPCWocg10coRXLKrYwsR+ZNLDmAS67fyP0j0zcxmMFjIFf/Meld0B3auZ+xRq ZEKR12wnPObkMkEzEP2wSwWhUB6ThY/a9ryWBaz/sfMCVBei0LffJAK8aev9d4xsTXRS Zrp0CjO30+gJulEcpY1Qr7B4RDBwJJu7hTVjS2VtKm8frfcpSzFvgw6YGbxdL6MszvY4 K91EsBUM7BqmXtEO97/5+zyWRkAwvzHO5y2w/keaNpe5upueLNQw+Jej3ha46zjWF+Qr lQSRVTwJD6i+z5ueOnOv1MyDLcBv4byIEDaQ5F9UzWKU6lPOZGPBmBgN6Cbea9De+WCA Izeg== 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=mMXv99jOfONi2HSyhAb0DB9KR0OBF9jsBZlJoEzIprA=; b=NSXBzmCUl6Tcr26YquFVFyOvmpHCWLc3LKeRVNWCEC7HP0K7ZJ1rm4a9zT5ohJqtv6 lNIJ/KVfJDXoc81xPKW6zazNZpvE6vsasPHZhdMmWNoZGPI7QOp544DaZ4mWoKTQyavt Vusk2yfeaTiAYNp97JKGOoSYSjPsYFASCz7gsP5OUSCcm8R5uMqLW3DQ4Yu7QFzsqZxY CGdp31/qneVLlUv9EmQGVvAmN53v+BgJ6YBwBdb2mfipvLNRbRgFoUfnjr3jmi7uNjhO bTJpPxYlfMHzvWI1C4FPpw/ocnCea9cGtmxlod1OGfgm5pfBu/rDhUq3wkevt1zcaq3L l1rg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531BWIRCSOtNOamChxZpqMTrxH1UihdX9jYS0YpDcHidAWprJ3un Vay/WlMVMXhdePfcp0VRnyw7vCuPwgnFkTEl5qNB8Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy04zRXju4aUSMtQJCecrhWaADhz2YmaMy95NtstZyVcAbaP+K9xccslGJgscdgmrop+BP9Q/U/NSEtDHfcEAw= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:6c9:: with SMTP id u9mr11096406lff.475.1608770818711; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 16:46:58 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <441ca4b4-98d6-06d3-fab1-17455ff6d559@huitema.net> <0726262c-18ea-ae3e-c6a5-ad127dfd36c6@joelhalpern.com> <1A07F196-3DBA-4D63-95EB-F7537BAC73C4@tzi.org> In-Reply-To: From: "StJohns, Michael" Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 19:46:47 -0500 Message-ID: To: "Joel M. Halpern" Cc: Carsten Bormann , rfced-future@iab.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002cbb2105b72b2546" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] WG Document review body X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2020 00:47:03 -0000 --0000000000002cbb2105b72b2546 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Why are we trying to treat the RSE in a manner that=E2=80=99s less than any= other IETF participant? I see no reason to make this a non voting position with the caveat that as usual they will recuse themselves from their own document. Seriously - let=E2=80=99s avoid =E2=80=9Cjust a contractor=E2=80=9D thinkin= g and pre positioning ourselves to ignore the hired expertise of such a person. Mike On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 18:18 Joel M. Halpern wrote: > thank you Carsten. Yes, something along those lines is what I was > looking for. I am not sure what the right word is either. Non-voting > is probably close enough. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 12/23/2020 4:26 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > > (Taking you away from the github issues vs. email discussion.) > > > > On 2020-12-19, at 21:08, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > >> > >> Having a review body would likely help some of my concerns. (Not all, > but that is a separate thread). > >> Even if the RS{EA} does not ahve a vote on the review body, I think it > would be good to include that person in the review process. > > > > It is hard to codify culture, but the culture should be to listen to th= e > RSE. > > > > One step in that direction would be to make the RSE a non-voting(*) > member of the review body. > > > > Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten > > > > (*)Ouch. Is there a better term for what I mean? > > > > -- > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future > --0000000000002cbb2105b72b2546 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Why are we trying to treat the RSE in a manner that=E2=80= =99s less than any other IETF participant?=C2=A0 I see no reason to make th= is a non voting position with the caveat that as usual they will recuse the= mselves from their own document. =C2=A0=C2=A0

Seriously - let=E2=80=99s avoid =E2=80=9Cjust a contr= actor=E2=80=9D thinking and pre positioning ourselves to ignore the hired e= xpertise of such a person. =C2=A0

Mike

On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 18:18 Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
thank you Carsten.=C2=A0 Yes, something al= ong those lines is what I was
looking for.=C2=A0 I am not sure what the right word is either.=C2=A0 Non-v= oting
is probably close enough.

Yours,
Joel

On 12/23/2020 4:26 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> (Taking you away from the github issues vs. email discussion.)
>
> On 2020-12-19, at 21:08, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
>>
>> Having a review body would likely help some of my concerns.=C2=A0 = (Not all, but that is a separate thread).
>> Even if the RS{EA} does not ahve a vote on the review body, I thin= k it would be good to include that person in the review process.
>
> It is hard to codify culture, but the culture should be to listen to t= he RSE.
>
> One step in that direction would be to make the RSE a non-voting(*) me= mber of the review body.
>
> Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten
>
> (*)Ouch.=C2=A0 Is there a better term for what I mean?
>

--
Rfced-future mailing list
Rfced-future@iab.= org
https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
--0000000000002cbb2105b72b2546-- From nobody Wed Dec 23 16:51:10 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40C683A0982 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 16:51:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-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=itaoyama.onmicrosoft.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 E5wopTL5DElk for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 16:51:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from JPN01-OS2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr1410104.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.141.104]) (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 77C2B3A097C for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 16:51:06 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=KlkjxBUulNm7GpGBKPHMMJnWl64ndTxAuq1AOkHj7c0JppmlnOmrW4YxqPTKhMaiRc5E4YQ9g1znY8CRPHpq7o58FBEXSyFaMLQkTy3WiKy8s3VT6cCu7/YoGzSjU7pThkuI+EWISjtSp+UK17HHWkP6KdUmH10RFp9ZISjy9gOieXQH+yTegXVFb6O0ZNAxD590/LP9iFR7UGBTkYlPCJVwqTFi/DWoifcrVFgHxU3WWTLF7gl/r6CD4KdQhHU28ilv4kDCvCcWBc+cP9jnqQe9fB8X72T7IVJargOmbXrjls5U1g9B4w5IzOUEVxSsHm7DqL26Ru9gyin+p8RX/w== 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=9fWjh9VrTk/kqiQjX7uxmyFSnQfbOOw+W4MTLNJQAko=; b=XLw2qWTt/PYJA2ZtxCYkudVbB/joByMjTbq6OsqQNi9/oIuXQrcH8hYDL+WHMMufmT12lQ0liN9Y36q/+xDn5PeDlT+F2CV3OBDXDCxtdS8eBiaMHcQ7YWvGzW91O2lrtk7Yu7ZHfwcIjd05yNrXvegsgdhYLkEM2P+bx+XZ1/vrTbkHG35FK5ooxi7tHgCV9M1VlbCs70t93AZ9o/s4Fuy0/VeUNLSnO0sJIGtkMP3AFqhlrDrDbmQFudZrFwd6owAdaisUktK0Ev+BUf0lJa3s9jsgb/cr6Y7zo+RLiIAhOELZAPOGBPyxg2cE2g8480XEyomX+QT6lxo6UAuPhw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=it.aoyama.ac.jp; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=it.aoyama.ac.jp; dkim=pass header.d=it.aoyama.ac.jp; arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=itaoyama.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-itaoyama-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=9fWjh9VrTk/kqiQjX7uxmyFSnQfbOOw+W4MTLNJQAko=; b=JbDVQqEZlF7odNbzFAib06Ygrgzz54eHnDaTm9WQFm2dV1pznLrhpmys8MBuXfHnDFEaANgXp1NaQDghwF7v7sPbTo5nt03EXMeRPDBLnOWexefO+vh0lW3GhDvUk5lwkBHrg+QttR+ZNaO1xnIUKVK/DuRK3QCmuYKf1kNxfQI= Authentication-Results: iab.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;iab.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=it.aoyama.ac.jp; Received: from OSBPR01MB2566.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (2603:1096:604:1c::13) by OS3PR01MB5909.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (2603:1096:604:c5::9) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3700.27; Thu, 24 Dec 2020 00:51:03 +0000 Received: from OSBPR01MB2566.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::cd30:9f1d:e76d:e8a8]) by OSBPR01MB2566.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::cd30:9f1d:e76d:e8a8%6]) with mapi id 15.20.3676.034; Thu, 24 Dec 2020 00:51:03 +0000 To: "Joel M. Halpern" , Eric Rescorla Cc: "rfced-future@iab.org" References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <52205b0b-979e-e278-9511-e5853f9c4e9c@joelhalpern.com> <0FC1D91B-ADBD-43E0-9437-2DE9B85B4EC4@cisco.com> <056684f2-ab2c-5b85-4dfd-bada78e1e528@joelhalpern.com> <07aa9478-ca0c-aed3-8a9a-312a78172a5f@joelhalpern.com> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_J=2e_D=c3=bcrst?= Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University Message-ID: <8dff4aaf-6752-fe3c-1cfc-58e1c49d484b@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2020 09:51:01 +0900 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 In-Reply-To: <07aa9478-ca0c-aed3-8a9a-312a78172a5f@joelhalpern.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [121.118.76.82] X-ClientProxiedBy: TY2PR02CA0032.apcprd02.prod.outlook.com (2603:1096:404:a6::20) To OSBPR01MB2566.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (2603:1096:604:1c::13) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1 Received: from [192.168.1.6] (121.118.76.82) by TY2PR02CA0032.apcprd02.prod.outlook.com (2603:1096:404:a6::20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3700.27 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 24 Dec 2020 00:51:03 +0000 X-MS-PublicTrafficType: Email X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: 902c4272-2a43-4e92-c3fe-08d8a7a5fd4c X-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: OS3PR01MB5909: X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: X-MS-Oob-TLC-OOBClassifiers: OLM:9508; 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:OSBPR01MB2566.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(136003)(39840400004)(396003)(366004)(376002)(346002)(6486002)(86362001)(8676002)(2616005)(4326008)(186003)(956004)(316002)(16526019)(110136005)(966005)(66946007)(478600001)(66476007)(31696002)(8936002)(66556008)(786003)(5660300002)(16576012)(53546011)(26005)(2906002)(52116002)(36916002)(31686004)(43740500002)(45980500001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData: =?utf-8?B?Vkt4ZFpIWmtvbDcvdW4wdFNHZ2tOamRlSlNLSVE5QytnWGVZY2hmeWpEam9S?= =?utf-8?B?T09BbXVtUXN1T3I3c1FrRDZPY2tPcWRJMXZqcmhXcVZaY1R2V3d1Y3hhaVdX?= =?utf-8?B?aEwwOHhsNW81OTlGdmg3UTQrWTc2SE15SWVURCs1a1NzNk4wSXd4d2hGRjRz?= =?utf-8?B?Wkl0N2d6SDU1SzloQ20xYmRkRlB0NTMwSUZqUCtHMW1YZDRwQWRxZHZoTDBW?= =?utf-8?B?cjh2WnNWTWFlczIrNEhWZUhTV1ZoUWJ4VHJUa29uSFZmdEJGeGRKZDRMZUph?= =?utf-8?B?RG9lQWJTM01rV25jVXAzUUM2RHRDeExMRGNDTW04ZmRsT1lDdGNZQ0JoaGhF?= =?utf-8?B?U0RCbDJ5RHB4Vk5tdDRReTdYNjZzMVNiNG1Ubndnb3FlZkdFb0F6S1NobEx1?= =?utf-8?B?QmpmUFZnVDZhaXlzK3c2SU1IT0pBOTdFUi85aUQvS1FtYnV6TkdMZ0k4OHBH?= =?utf-8?B?MkNUbjFJMGdHWjAzT3MrZy9oM0FJYkpLK1dDd1p2c1V1NGlYa1RCWnAvb2FP?= =?utf-8?B?MzdyZmVvMTFUd25CWmFhb0hHanYxd1FBVnpHbWRyaEd0Wlk0MEdHeDlrSWE1?= =?utf-8?B?bkFadVR3OUpPSFF1K0JROXhMSkJZMG5YT2k1QW9xUUhrcW00Z1I1V1dZODdL?= =?utf-8?B?WEtPci9mZ1h4VWJSeTlQdGUzVGpuRnhzLy9aODBEdmxFS0lwYWR2WElKYllZ?= =?utf-8?B?N1JMWVVWOEMrY0pJUnN6cHhvSmVWbFBTMzNOeEYvdFBTMGNGM3YzUUxVSVNJ?= =?utf-8?B?MjQ2eFFRTDAwbzNHUGowdTRjTTFxcnZaYnFKWWROQUY1VkpjVWxGL1hDdzFM?= =?utf-8?B?Wk1PVWRrR2dnNldjQVlMa1pIRGZFTTN2UXYrL29wNzdSbmViTURaS3QxeWRi?= =?utf-8?B?VnlXdkJzcTZvemlscjBUWEFXdHQ2ZURVRWQwV1pUMlJDVUR0MGFZZHpKTEZC?= =?utf-8?B?M0ovdWZRbnc2bVZJWnFTNmdieTRNZEFGbTlNZFp1ckRnUDR3ZzNRR1NRTlNP?= =?utf-8?B?ZGMxMFRBcitwTHJab1hqb2V1dS9JMmg2bXpOU3ZrQjU3NysyRTV1cTdaSE9B?= =?utf-8?B?cVAxVE0yR3h6c2VXQVlYN0plY1ZNallIZ3Ryd0pmUjIvV1o0MjJFZnZrRlgr?= =?utf-8?B?ZC85T0UxRC9TOHpwTW5kVzdoQTBNWjVuOUJPM0Q5Yjk0WVNSdmlVWDFVdTNI?= =?utf-8?B?NEFBcDdZREQrNUo3aTFrK2NrUWdGTEpPTXNmRDNIeVlYRGpnYllWelNIMmt3?= =?utf-8?B?M1ZWWVJDNithMUxIdTRKWnY0SUpzcURHOHlIUzN4dWZXL0t2TlVtcEtIajdP?= =?utf-8?Q?6QUd/BfSnp85e19Nfqy6Xq4OnRz4Dd++0B?= X-OriginatorOrg: it.aoyama.ac.jp X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: OSBPR01MB2566.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Dec 2020 00:51:03.3364 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: e02030e7-4d45-463e-a968-0290e738c18e X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 902c4272-2a43-4e92-c3fe-08d8a7a5fd4c X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: 3mHhF0CG4dVN0RrHAlHKqY5DTagIBvcD7AH/vceCetA/9M96UMhShIANOd0+ygfPAwuZDKJxhJ8qt4CyReha8A== X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: OS3PR01MB5909 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] quasi-WG discussion procedures X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2020 00:51:09 -0000 On 24/12/2020 08:45, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > In the interest of making progress, I could live with wording that says > that initially all discussions will be on the email list, and that the > body can then choose (by rough consensus) to make adjustments. As long as it's clear that such adjustments are restricted to be within what's allowed for IETF WGs, I'm fine with this. A path where "because this isn't an IETF WG" led to another outcome would not be acceptable in my view. Regards, Martin. P.S.: Please note that that "5.3 Issue Discussion Mode" at https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8874.html#name-issue-discussion-mode includes repeated mentions of mailing lists and strong language that makes clear that the mailing list is the ultimate backstop. P.P.S: This does not mean that I would support "Issue Discussion Mode" myself when it came to that discussion. > > Yours, > Joel > > > On 12/23/2020 6:39 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 3:16 PM Joel M. Halpern > > wrote: >> >>     This may be the core of the difference.  If aissue discussion takes >>     place in a fashion such that all github comments are also >>     understandable >>     on the email, and all email comments are visible and >> understandable to >>     those participating via github, then I have little concern (in both >>     cases, "understandable" is of course assuming the writing itself was >>     understandable). >> >>     On the other hand, as written 5.3 allows for a mode of operation in >>     which the discussion is entirely in the issue tracker.  I do not >>     consider that acceptable for this working group.  To the extend that >>     Eliot's words create a higher bar for moving to such an operational >>     mode, I consider that a benefit. >> >> >> You're free to feel that way, but as should be apparent, I don't, and >> for that reason I am not supportive of this language. >> >> -Ekr From nobody Wed Dec 23 17:04:37 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EC403A09C0 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 17:04:36 -0800 (PST) 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-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 fF3m_ifFFFuX for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 17:04:35 -0800 (PST) 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 5122A3A09BE for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 17:04:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pl1-x62c.google.com with SMTP id r4so522804pls.11 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 17:04:35 -0800 (PST) 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=hKprqua338ibQowSDCyykgNm4srYWP+QVhU14Azwe6s=; b=UJ1BhYOlGI9Pl2S3ytYsL2Ky2NCbh6tFQJg3BI0+t58oyE+ob4aL5qSO8KL9h7Yx1A wzb2ZVXYRu40edDnIT1294sinkvoFJbtQ/iqUAdydhbaSF93NMsE7OqEDFDWo6b1VCSG UyWjQChrQzSel1hiSOBA3u6Li1qGN7717p7yH14aAN56NK9qEbSJUQdueLH/BlcjHCev sNWi63Hl3iqmHePfUaiKgXAsbTWEn/0BPyu1xI65C6GWNfGw8aQTtDoOJB1ieYgO8xWt t296vMQXhzq5JSIPefYDMDDFm8hbKqhgAPw6EQqwC77jqAo2KzvQwa0qO/inIY04jSZa G+HQ== 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=hKprqua338ibQowSDCyykgNm4srYWP+QVhU14Azwe6s=; b=qsAgcGpHNZ5nMH7Q4Ns0W4/YA9PKPJqrIYYPwMy6MstjIrCoVGMkm3zYFlFf6uBkOc bRgu7t3sqHazTVLDlQYXEsNk7ePFGbrA9iDUZJiCtxlGb3zdkLeY/qOZ9tXYAnjsCcWK w5uuDzxU3fAoe7ErP4//nsEgcL2ALHfuvkM/V0lZ95f9SZcpaltMtDziNrVxW1Gz+GEf MKOK5dDSQmYYB/zVBWYWTtvNEm5UL06C6BpLpJBKtIqBMBgtAKUlTMpi0ABAETVUDLgY RCRjuJm2mAFtjm0j16LYzEqitl/nf8WZiu1kkqiOAzcTkR1NTnNVBdPRDSsCOhGnQGPJ g42g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532dE/P7uiTNbcPB1mLC9Ca8GvIRwHlExDSfghHSM4++QYM1Hbt7 5JmwS7q/UgFHfx4hOtk7jgtIadFUz8/vQw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxG905B9As2EKA8Kc4AmNNustg7nmpQZ+yoofuaXf7oXNHCo0RGOiP0TRaIdTisKkH+C8gLlg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:9a4a:b029:dc:435c:70ad with SMTP id x10-20020a1709029a4ab02900dc435c70admr12123805plv.77.1608771874456; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 17:04:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.178.25] ([151.210.131.28]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l141sm25536522pfd.124.2020.12.23.17.04.31 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 23 Dec 2020 17:04:33 -0800 (PST) To: Eric Rescorla Cc: "Joel M. Halpern" , "rfced-future@iab.org" References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <52205b0b-979e-e278-9511-e5853f9c4e9c@joelhalpern.com> <0FC1D91B-ADBD-43E0-9437-2DE9B85B4EC4@cisco.com> <056684f2-ab2c-5b85-4dfd-bada78e1e528@joelhalpern.com> <6f45b06b-8e88-790e-52ba-f5aba8ebb3fc@gmail.com> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: <5f7cdef7-7481-0e07-ca3a-eb5e84dd1250@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2020 14:04:29 +1300 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: [Rfced-future] quasi-WG discussion procedures X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2020 01:04:37 -0000 On 24-Dec-20 12:38, Eric Rescorla wrote: >=20 >=20 > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 2:43 PM Brian E Carpenter > wrote: >=20 > On 24-Dec-20 10:32, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 1:05 PM Joel M. Halpern >> wrote: > > > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Apparently, you and I are reading the same wor= ds very differently.=C2=A0 I see: > > > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0The strategic body may decide to use additiona= l forms of communication > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0and tooling that are consistent with IETF work= ing group practices > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0[RFC2418,RFC8744]. > > > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Presuming that 8744 was intended to be 8874, t= hat appears to explicilty > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0allow the quasi-WG to choose to use any additi= onal forms of > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0communication.=C2=A0 It does presuppose that e= mail will also be an > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0alternative.=C2=A0 That seems to enable exactl= y the discussion you and Mark > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0want.=C2=A0 I do not see how that wording "for= ecloses the WG=C2=A0 having this > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0discussion". > > > > > > The text I am concerned with is "all discussions of issues take p= lace on open mailing lists". This seems to specifically exclude "Issue Di= scussion Mode" (RFC 8874; S 5.3). I take it from your comments upthread t= hat you object to that mode of operation, but that's not my preference. I= f what you're trying to accomplish here isn't precluding that outcome, th= en I don't see the purpose of this text at all. >=20 > RFC2418 literally says "In determining the balance, the WG must ens= ure that its process does not serve to exclude contribution by email-only= participants." That was in the context of face-to-face decisions vs emai= l decisions, but in the IETF we've consistently extended that principle t= o include both on-line meetings (which are exclusionary for some particip= ants) and new-fangled tools such as issue trackers. >=20 >=20 > You seem to be arguing that the Github "Issue Discussion" flow as defin= ed in RFC 8874 violates this section of RFC 2418. However, that would pro= hibit the use of this flow by IETF WGs at all, which clearly can't be the= right outcome, else 8874 could not have been published at all. 8874 says (among other things) "Decisions about working group consensus MUST always be confirmed using t= he working group mailing list. ... Using the mailing list to resolve diff= icult or controversial issues is strongly encouraged." I'm fine with that. If someone writes to a WG saying "I don't understand = the reasoning behind the proposed resolution of Issue 93, please explain"= and someone answers that email with an explanation, there's no issue. Bu= t if they simply say "look in the tracker, doofus" we have a problem. So I'd say that our wording here should not rehash what's already written= =2E Just point to the RFCs. As Martin's draft said "Therefore, this docum= ent proposes that strategic goals for the RFC Series are developed using = the working group process [WG] used in the IETF." Which my draft slightly= changed to "Therefore, this document proposes that strategic goals for t= he RFC Series are developed using the working group process [RFC2418] use= d in the IETF to the maximum extent possible, given that the community of= interest is broader than the IETF." Regards Brian From nobody Wed Dec 23 17:05:42 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFABF3A09C0 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 17:05:40 -0800 (PST) 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-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 6P2wcFqQbo3l for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 17:05:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pf1-x435.google.com (mail-pf1-x435.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::435]) (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 157E13A09BE for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 17:05:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pf1-x435.google.com with SMTP id t8so399014pfg.8 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 17:05:38 -0800 (PST) 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=iPqQ4rSN50OD+vaum2oTjCPyDFC9vuGkjWP3xDS4KC8=; b=oc5HgGYGcE/KI3/owZ2x+NdWAXF1eHsn5iXLLmaW7vgGw+gd//TA6iDs4wGYUiQdQv KeIulrcvAApwJ4ECo/wRZkESkJvPZvXHWCWdAsHLITkUfufewfUGwgJ+e9zxIXub7Zq6 VsGOK62ih6ajHkooOApad9msDa77q221XfjiVb9vStJLG0ZXOICn26Ajze02sNRvqbea vkE/y59r9X/hOoLCFsIwbCQkD/dMUXRW1dMwidByfissG1kqN1XyYp5DnsapOx+xaljX 27LRXl5b09mvWOSD7rdYr7HHwj8ZvEK6q9KGVd8WPIP2xh6TQzcK7g2CFVO4XuoBKLGQ 9hQQ== 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=iPqQ4rSN50OD+vaum2oTjCPyDFC9vuGkjWP3xDS4KC8=; b=tJ8fDJxVVMFGm9ZrMM/zwz2pZ1uJ15QIr9ubF8Oxg7JP5cKo6fQtgITJn+gt820E9i kXfSQ9NHJxTxpA0phKZfynIKGxXDdVcAHnVSSgNavFgezRj/5xxCrvcXT3MaoNv9/Eq1 1F/ifyRiABIBrUoH3WoKeuwnv7YbfW71XkujaOSkxJpJX5+TCqu9SeBzC8Rc0uZ64DAv jn9bA+/i8WAVFThJIKOyaa8UomgLgA5sQklF90urn6yLYNOw2KF5Kz4mgTAg2/TVtYop OGnByxbIXpj1aCc5xZ3LJSbPyiR1EhAEkbBuscPqrANjpVxYf8lO2gHAFYSB/cFyRF26 5QPw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53398oSD7yOTQE6PiVbSuynMDVN0tzm+cjX5PDtNPAAnEqvgkUoq RRtnFZ9wnzATsMGIfkD3yXw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwA+VFVgwOBs18YztO+cQkev3ic+eMUflfWxckSC+JtRFvSxPBpFDjEu1zPvKubOG37obmlZw== X-Received: by 2002:a63:d305:: with SMTP id b5mr3068245pgg.452.1608771938406; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 17:05:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.178.25] ([151.210.131.28]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w63sm24193476pfc.20.2020.12.23.17.05.35 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 23 Dec 2020 17:05:37 -0800 (PST) To: "StJohns, Michael" , "Joel M. Halpern" Cc: rfced-future@iab.org, Carsten Bormann References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <441ca4b4-98d6-06d3-fab1-17455ff6d559@huitema.net> <0726262c-18ea-ae3e-c6a5-ad127dfd36c6@joelhalpern.com> <1A07F196-3DBA-4D63-95EB-F7537BAC73C4@tzi.org> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2020 14:05:33 +1300 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: [Rfced-future] WG Document review body X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2020 01:05:41 -0000 On 24-Dec-20 13:46, StJohns, Michael wrote: > Why are we trying to treat the RSE in a manner that=E2=80=99s less than= any other IETF participant?=C2=A0 I see no reason to make this a non vot= ing position with the caveat that as usual they will recuse themselves fr= om their own document. =C2=A0=20 What he said. Brian >=20 > Seriously - let=E2=80=99s avoid =E2=80=9Cjust a contractor=E2=80=9D thi= nking and pre positioning ourselves to ignore the hired expertise of such= a person. =C2=A0 >=20 > Mike >=20 > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 18:18 Joel M. Halpern > wrote: >=20 > thank you Carsten.=C2=A0 Yes, something along those lines is what I= was > looking for.=C2=A0 I am not sure what the right word is either.=C2=A0= Non-voting > is probably close enough. >=20 > Yours, > Joel >=20 > On 12/23/2020 4:26 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > > (Taking you away from the github issues vs. email discussion.) > > > > On 2020-12-19, at 21:08, Joel M. Halpern > wrote: > >> > >> Having a review body would likely help some of my concerns.=C2=A0= (Not all, but that is a separate thread). > >> Even if the RS{EA} does not ahve a vote on the review body, I th= ink it would be good to include that person in the review process. > > > > It is hard to codify culture, but the culture should be to listen= to the RSE. > > > > One step in that direction would be to make the RSE a non-voting(= *) member of the review body. > > > > Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten > > > > (*)Ouch.=C2=A0 Is there a better term for what I mean? > > >=20 > --=20 > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future >=20 >=20 From nobody Wed Dec 23 17:14:08 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8B673A09CF for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 17:14:07 -0800 (PST) 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, 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 AzIdCs6EfyCE for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 17:14:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 532853A09CD for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 17:14:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p548dca87.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.202.135]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4D1XCX6vLYzySS; Thu, 24 Dec 2020 02:14:00 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2020 02:14:00 +0100 Cc: "Joel M. Halpern" , rfced-future@iab.org X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 630465240.442114-0f69774b48d3a41876aaef37019b8aa3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <651D0579-7425-4D2D-9558-B323C9D3B101@tzi.org> References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <441ca4b4-98d6-06d3-fab1-17455ff6d559@huitema.net> <0726262c-18ea-ae3e-c6a5-ad127dfd36c6@joelhalpern.com> <1A07F196-3DBA-4D63-95EB-F7537BAC73C4@tzi.org> To: "StJohns, Michael" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] WG Document review body X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2020 01:14:08 -0000 Hi Mike, > On 2020-12-24, at 01:46, StJohns, Michael = wrote: >=20 > Why are we trying to treat the RSE in a manner that=E2=80=99s less = than any other IETF participant? =20 I was talking about the review body. > I see no reason to make this a non voting position with the caveat = that as usual they will recuse themselves from their own document. =20 Since many strategy documents will come from the RSE, that would make = them recuse themselves a lot. The point of the review body is to create pushback for the authors and = the WG, and the RSE can=E2=80=99t be author and pushback at the same = time. > Seriously - let=E2=80=99s avoid =E2=80=9Cjust a contractor=E2=80=9D = thinking and pre positioning ourselves to ignore the hired expertise of = such a person. =20 That was indeed my whole point, and the reason why there needs to be a = culture of listening to them. Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten From nobody Sat Dec 26 05:18:08 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29E113A1077 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 05:18:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 OLdafARenr7I for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 05:18:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79BB13A1076 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 05:18:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3301; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1608988684; x=1610198284; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=p+NHpeojRwtlTX1eLh0+fhFSYtLtcRmmjZyWtBOOGkk=; b=QCp7/AcoLalCrVaJEZsrUgUsXu6LJWLpKQSRrD8ruQtS9TJfBHkfe1ab TzBkg2u64aUPOuPrXK0slOmwnvM8KQC1QCHgnCYAuR88v3hMlQ9N/03Ij QjZnaj8fM1oCSdvJGPDArsnZ/SF+LWbj8NFbxd71Ho3kIT8o4vVCeFd7M A=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0A8AACTN+df/xbLJq1iHAEBAQEBAQcBARIBAQQEAQGBf?= =?us-ascii?q?AYBAQsBg3cBIBKEbYkEiAEolBuGIBSBaAQHAQEBCgMBAS8EAQGESgKBcyY1C?= =?us-ascii?q?A4CAwEBAQMCAwEBAQEFAQEBAgEGBHGFbYV0AQQBI0sLBQsLBAEJNAICVwaDO?= =?us-ascii?q?QGCZiCuQ3aBMoVYhGAQgTgBgVKLVkGCAIE4DBCCVj6EAINWNIIsBIFUgklun?= =?us-ascii?q?TaKa5E9gwCDJ4E3lnoDH4MpiiuFMo9KsVCDbgIEBgUCFoFYATeBVzMaCBsVZ?= =?us-ascii?q?QGCPz0SGQ2ca0ADZwIGAQkBAQMJjHEBAQ?= X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.78,450,1599523200"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="29777979" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 26 Dec 2020 13:18:00 +0000 Received: from [10.61.199.185] ([10.61.199.185]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 0BQDHxJq029048 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 26 Dec 2020 13:18:00 GMT From: Eliot Lear Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F76CDF9E-6E83-45D7-B2B6-283E1E178E86"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2020 14:17:59 +0100 In-Reply-To: Cc: "Joel M. Halpern" , "rfced-future@iab.org" To: Eric Rescorla References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <52205b0b-979e-e278-9511-e5853f9c4e9c@joelhalpern.com> <0FC1D91B-ADBD-43E0-9437-2DE9B85B4EC4@cisco.com> <056684f2-ab2c-5b85-4dfd-bada78e1e528@joelhalpern.com> <07aa9478-ca0c-aed3-8a9a-312a78172a5f@joelhalpern.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.199.185, [10.61.199.185] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] quasi-WG discussion procedures X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2020 13:18:06 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_F76CDF9E-6E83-45D7-B2B6-283E1E178E86 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7657EF4C-A8A2-455D-A45C-521079D4CE1F" --Apple-Mail=_7657EF4C-A8A2-455D-A45C-521079D4CE1F Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi everyone! So=E2=80=A6 to be clear, I think what we are now saying is the = following: > All strategic body meetings are open to the public, all discussions of = issues will initially take place on open mailing lists, and anyone is = welcome to comment / discuss. The strategic body may decide by rough = consensus to use additional forms of communication that are consistent = with [RFC2418]. Please indicate your concerns with/edits to the above approach by the = 8th of January. Eliot --Apple-Mail=_7657EF4C-A8A2-455D-A45C-521079D4CE1F Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Hi = everyone!

So=E2=80=A6 = to be clear, I think what we are now saying is the following:

All strategic body meetings are open to the = public, all discussions of issues will initially take place on open mailing lists, and anyone is = welcome to comment / discuss.  The strategic body may decide by rough consensus to use additional forms of = communication that are consistent with = [RFC2418].


Please indicate your concerns = with/edits to the above approach by the 8th of January.

Eliot

= --Apple-Mail=_7657EF4C-A8A2-455D-A45C-521079D4CE1F-- --Apple-Mail=_F76CDF9E-6E83-45D7-B2B6-283E1E178E86 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAl/nOAcACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejOUggf8DO5CRNOkHNRdG/m8dUji8pdrv8mIZVg5x+RPjvbZhuVFKH+ONOMo4bFC aWGXxh8fzQVgXIM+uSWxg4uEAD276Jo23469tpcPp8RY3zuejue6r7FpOZaRd4gj 1Bwb5J5seNyqaum4qOix7SVKcGn/oeImlGbP0ZgESSE1Mwv8ggclp753qT3hvGIS h3AFrjFl8/VaiUduXroIEbEMgzWPTub8HWS/EbW92WUUhitFQc5nKBJiFkUK7Zv6 8dsCqRgIPX+OYQW/pXGh3l55LOmhfxn/gevVvhEotyr2nq6rELZy9K/wUoSLAH93 fu946J7qvmDMuljj+kPGBi17OEVApA== =/LVw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_F76CDF9E-6E83-45D7-B2B6-283E1E178E86-- From nobody Sat Dec 26 13:15:40 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 849C33A0FC2 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 13:15:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PI-CaiQIU4d9 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 13:15:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qt1-x835.google.com (mail-qt1-x835.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::835]) (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 30A923A0FC3 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 13:15:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qt1-x835.google.com with SMTP id v5so4709317qtv.7 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 13:15:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language; bh=V6UoYRdzdz1BAVWt77NOp2pO4/9PLOPSeaLZVNyhOWU=; b=x51YoLIIooss10Q5rnev/8/cWIHmHNzqiUD8XFDDeU5iEy5byS5p49UV2uIlVKKZoa 4oPd+C+M6DVfAyjhrLoTNyNjdQ8Vwx7oMqvJVf5QRr0zbSZqfK5j8/N1L1WC3wiuIUF4 BoUV/Lpy67971Rh9M/8elzsP8I9lhOQtysvBa88iyZh5Y3lwgsZ2jELe3K2skIJnjx0a vEbgsXNmriBukS8SB3EztaKem6RPnIYEHiRGAXTDLNhwGSZpf2/oSvKtLSMCts3Qfmh9 aEjHrQWKkkwyK8oV6TqcfG7nxuDBoCzhLwumRhgfFAyAbUYsLLCUM6txPiGn/WAfuyzj zYTg== 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; bh=V6UoYRdzdz1BAVWt77NOp2pO4/9PLOPSeaLZVNyhOWU=; b=eBTite84pOuj6pPkakvFFxCEZO+7awtdEqWkMv+DUUJKBkRHKuEiA8mQuhBvJZifsR OYRv+KksI2UwjGSku7B6YhJypEGuBusHm/jRMGMXo1cBjtH0NIr5+KRclM77DQGQG9Ts KcCaO/pvkkZG+ZvNS4QB1Lpn81PPYAYUBN39KajSytnf2siPQ0M+lFGWnAh68Qrf/DhY +DAoUbhTHGfCtyr+Z6TW70QxlXy6d5w2PtFBmJSGgzUmHk4faBmhBPI/UxCch8Fi9Sa1 tIfDr1FVY/Gk+pC5iE7HoNelmm3+pkAZIMzCAAX6uhjGz5kDFc8vMMbtSUXLqriaikRB fxgQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530s2ATSjcU8oTwf0UGwPUxqlz3IQf38LRSnCRGOq3TfXtq2keXm cS9EZfaVdo84qSz6+6ucgtLMIzuD4nlDyQLB X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy6bqmU7a16wTWXnbqyex8eQdaWGSyN2++mO/FGJQor2Pt48TD8PVSvALYASyM9FpCziBlwOg== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7352:: with SMTP id q18mr37241039qtp.167.1609017336547; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 13:15:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.23] (pool-108-28-189-254.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [108.28.189.254]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w22sm20729474qtt.76.2020.12.26.13.15.35 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 26 Dec 2020 13:15:35 -0800 (PST) To: rfced-future@iab.org References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <0FC1D91B-ADBD-43E0-9437-2DE9B85B4EC4@cisco.com> <056684f2-ab2c-5b85-4dfd-bada78e1e528@joelhalpern.com> <07aa9478-ca0c-aed3-8a9a-312a78172a5f@joelhalpern.com> From: Michael StJohns Message-ID: <2f29a27d-0231-0ad4-cd8a-24dcfe5666b3@nthpermutation.com> Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2020 16:15:34 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------0FCCDBA8CBC527CD606A5103" Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] quasi-WG discussion procedures X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2020 21:15:40 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------0FCCDBA8CBC527CD606A5103 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 12/26/2020 8:17 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: > Hi everyone! > > So… to be clear, I think what we are now saying is the following: > >> |All strategic body meetings are open to the public, all discussions >> of issues *will* *initially* take place on open mailing lists, and >> anyone is welcome to comment / discuss.  The |strategic body may >> decide *by rough consensus* to use additional forms of communication >> that are consistent with [RFC2418]. Instead: "All strategic bodies are open to the public.  All strategic issue discussions will take place on open mailing lists, and anyone is welcome to comment/discuss.  On a document by document basis, the strategic body may decide by rough consensus, and with the assent of the designated editors, to use additional forms of communication consistent with [RFC2418] for the production of a given document.  Use of those forms of communication does not replace the responsibility of the editors to bring major strategic issues with the document to the mailing list." Github is pretty much the worst way to have a discussion such as we're currently having and I expect that things like writing an SOW or even deciding what the charter might be needs to be kept on the mailing list.  It may make sense for a given document for the editing of various content, but not for the day to day operation of the group. Later, Mike > > > Please indicate your concerns with/edits to the above approach by the > 8th of January. > > Eliot > > --------------0FCCDBA8CBC527CD606A5103 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 12/26/2020 8:17 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
Hi everyone!

So… to be clear, I think what we are now saying is the following:

All strategic body meetings are open to the public, all discussions of issues will initially take place on open mailing lists, and anyone is welcome to comment / discuss.  The strategic body may decide by rough consensus to use additional forms of communication that are consistent with [RFC2418].

Instead:


"All strategic bodies are open to the public.  All strategic issue discussions will take place on open mailing lists, and anyone is welcome to comment/discuss.  On a document by document basis, the strategic body may decide by rough consensus, and with the assent of the designated editors, to use additional forms of communication consistent with [RFC2418] for the production of a given document.  Use of those forms of communication does not replace the responsibility of the editors to bring major strategic issues with the document to the mailing list."


Github is pretty much the worst way to have a discussion such as we're currently having and I expect that things like writing an SOW or even deciding what the charter might be needs to be kept on the mailing list.  It may make sense for a given document for the editing of various content, but not for the day to day operation of the group.

Later, Mike




Please indicate your concerns with/edits to the above approach by the 8th of January.

Eliot



--------------0FCCDBA8CBC527CD606A5103-- From nobody Sat Dec 26 13:21:17 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4D463A0FD3 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 13:21:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3zsBHQfX-CTl for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 13:21:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qt1-x82d.google.com (mail-qt1-x82d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82d]) (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 F07E93A0FD5 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 13:21:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qt1-x82d.google.com with SMTP id j26so4706083qtq.8 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 13:21:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=YIMH/tjdr6Xvdfa0iuUPcDQ0LKZJtWbeegGchx/RcNc=; b=KlVXb10pqiQXxULrsMoIcKrAb/nPYoq0Vw35oL9Dc/HdcWJUHHZVCnUTRH70Cc33ji NwPz+hfSBydJttvFQDbcrB4etpk+LWD3EuHwsXymXjyBtTb0M4KgYkvyXs1aXjq3WQyy Q8ZzanlP9TJwRDVOJue9FMpnZ6i0Ay/bTCYo2W7qb0RrespxHAUFEZGbOKJMdI+T/wTd qvoefRmXRqZfMHcJ8NLVcfCRryGe1b77X4DNPkUZ8UDM+ZXrdlfS5rdB0xdfvgV8ta/M O7eS80XREtyss+ZQLILoWWxcl9zkAc/DY/Mc7G23LhDg33GwvyO8T42l+Rgl9Kbqt6SY qlzw== 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-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=YIMH/tjdr6Xvdfa0iuUPcDQ0LKZJtWbeegGchx/RcNc=; b=LRixwkdklwsiLKQxGz2VRVqL7AZlcvUe5ig/L7FBr/1BIu/bcQm77jD66Vui8KTm2W 4xz4ftmNH5telry5JE5Vznozj0ljbvzTvWTyd0mq1aLIH9lkrHncdCDEt04PeBOQ6MWR ARu7W9YsPNYwKBgmZM+S+Ebhmk8dkxVceTiVivuhnsIWV623aTQC2LATjlyMaxLc1+WF oKfFWOtbpCnbTu/52RwPx0lIOGdE8x05NoDd4hDrP6/O6h7M7QH5oAQmXUdqG2ojyw5x uhLrwaBQSE0FQ9h61yqSoIqiFq+MjOuuDNvIqkeIrhVwLsGF7/xHNx+Q5x+H+4o7QHTe 5E8Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533d/34RSNPCiSoXss38YGi1xx0U/4aCJ7PEg1gf9J7iRThEd/cj Lr9eE5tZGtgWBGzLsgw2uJfZ0XICjSzZqbmv X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz2eaovW8F1nR/JbDF7igofVOsur/V+1SBZqNxWQV67fntB/sH7YFlLK0KHhb3GZjai1xZMpw== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:1249:: with SMTP id g9mr38892295qtj.377.1609017671367; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 13:21:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.23] (pool-108-28-189-254.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [108.28.189.254]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d140sm21070120qkc.111.2020.12.26.13.21.10 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 26 Dec 2020 13:21:10 -0800 (PST) To: Carsten Bormann Cc: "Joel M. Halpern" , rfced-future@iab.org References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <441ca4b4-98d6-06d3-fab1-17455ff6d559@huitema.net> <0726262c-18ea-ae3e-c6a5-ad127dfd36c6@joelhalpern.com> <1A07F196-3DBA-4D63-95EB-F7537BAC73C4@tzi.org> <651D0579-7425-4D2D-9558-B323C9D3B101@tzi.org> From: Michael StJohns Message-ID: <334630d4-a0f3-5442-f3c5-b71b4adac322@nthpermutation.com> Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2020 16:21:09 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <651D0579-7425-4D2D-9558-B323C9D3B101@tzi.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] WG Document review body X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2020 21:21:15 -0000 On 12/23/2020 8:14 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > Hi Mike, > >> On 2020-12-24, at 01:46, StJohns, Michael wrote: >> >> Why are we trying to treat the RSE in a manner that’s less than any other IETF participant? > I was talking about the review body. So was I. > >> I see no reason to make this a non voting position with the caveat that as usual they will recuse themselves from their own document. > Since many strategy documents will come from the RSE, that would make them recuse themselves a lot. > The point of the review body is to create pushback for the authors and the WG, and the RSE can’t be author and pushback at the same time. Not exactly.  Pushback is the wrong word here.  Basically, the review body is evaluating documents for a) meets the requirements of the streams, b) consistent with the consensus strategy.   I expect as you do that the RSE will author most of the documents and will have the editors pen - a form of voting if you will and reasonable to recuse themselves from the formal vote.  At the times that the RSE does not have the pen, they have an interest - I'd say even a contractual interest - in ensuring that the documents are consistent with what's possible within their own work plan.  Hence they get a vote. Mike >> Seriously - let’s avoid “just a contractor” thinking and pre positioning ourselves to ignore the hired expertise of such a person. > That was indeed my whole point, and the reason why there needs to be a culture of listening to them. > > Grüße, Carsten > From nobody Sat Dec 26 15:09:32 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 211033A103F for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 15:09:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4e23xVUPRaoU for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 15:09:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lf1-x130.google.com (mail-lf1-x130.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::130]) (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 16F1A3A1018 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 15:09:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf1-x130.google.com with SMTP id m25so16201354lfc.11 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 15:09:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=MJq+XVYSTePPzpoioZdIowgYFzrP2T8mi6P1HTEZk0w=; b=0YRMA6AkAHDfmlWUCzQgk3pX3BoMHKOIUALzGWaMNytpjb6cPUYzMESF67ZLP0WuKG /5Q1hkRF29JGMj43z995QwGWoFuezcGJf7EmaLmDq3JBZnI0R8noYWvtKUq0TwyQrSpJ tMFI34ux6JbRfUADP/ozyhhEre/jnTRLXyWmuM8LWRgN0aSh1gMV0y+w1fR7wNgq9C5s RrBFKWWDnlDe7T8HuWAfKxgBhMyZeg8PIklefTJkAK/tyLUpx4r4/FwQ657b1kP0D8AO IFPXTfpGXFzWOEP/FadSlS2KEbQWiSukxcHVwUOJlC1wErYBTTDj8HZ/sk/am34SuqJI KiMQ== 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=MJq+XVYSTePPzpoioZdIowgYFzrP2T8mi6P1HTEZk0w=; b=FRn0EFKhlW/5fkAtKMOXPrMr69JCBwXKRXrIuUE3mHtYQC0mptlh2c/S3E7ItZJRPt vd4/8UG37zjFOIEioNVrBoaKcs65ZKZpm2mcoK8VTn84p28/4nxHu5SkUSllPXlngX+T oE626qYlqD+WBUKcxQG+ZnkQJZacTeGCjxHpLM8WGZ7lA9t6KSrdCFPt6h5aNi4XWiX+ NPs0h9TDruXLqLEVBXEXS0t1wW439U8M0lssIJKY13griz2exGmCqvzH7n7/zYcTJacE qY2qcbQuSWlTphjGkgYd6PLA8giVtu+Jb63ZTsqWM+99eUfwdT+8cC6uxMjwYdRDxpbC s35w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533E/NCpyvWL8CUo4ZWqi0eD3DFvNj7IxWzpwutil4C7dMJvLOVY uVXQHTQPm4s1d6bsEpG1H3ysoC9QDFd+1ujEXCRaEQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz6odA2UFLEoUnJR5t5SLtNmqnNp4+ysjKC1AlYRv1T1x6oqEBW/jEuPg2hSe1KkoSBtm8rfq7UQSp6rN0drI0= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:44ba:: with SMTP id c26mr15916199lfm.132.1609024167110; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 15:09:27 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <441ca4b4-98d6-06d3-fab1-17455ff6d559@huitema.net> <0726262c-18ea-ae3e-c6a5-ad127dfd36c6@joelhalpern.com> <1A07F196-3DBA-4D63-95EB-F7537BAC73C4@tzi.org> <651D0579-7425-4D2D-9558-B323C9D3B101@tzi.org> <334630d4-a0f3-5442-f3c5-b71b4adac322@nthpermutation.com> In-Reply-To: <334630d4-a0f3-5442-f3c5-b71b4adac322@nthpermutation.com> From: Eric Rescorla Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2020 15:08:51 -0800 Message-ID: To: Michael StJohns Cc: Carsten Bormann , rfced-future@iab.org, "Joel M. Halpern" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ea7eb205b76621ba" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] WG Document review body X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2020 23:09:31 -0000 --000000000000ea7eb205b76621ba Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 1:21 PM Michael StJohns wrote: > On 12/23/2020 8:14 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > > Hi Mike, > > > >> On 2020-12-24, at 01:46, StJohns, Michael > wrote: > >> > >> Why are we trying to treat the RSE in a manner that=E2=80=99s less tha= n any > other IETF participant? > > I was talking about the review body. > So was I. > > > >> I see no reason to make this a non voting position with the caveat tha= t > as usual they will recuse themselves from their own document. > > Since many strategy documents will come from the RSE, that would make > them recuse themselves a lot. > > The point of the review body is to create pushback for the authors and > the WG, and the RSE can=E2=80=99t be author and pushback at the same time= . > > Not exactly. Pushback is the wrong word here. Basically, the review > body is evaluating documents for a) meets the requirements of the > streams, b) consistent with the consensus strategy. I expect as you do > that the RSE will author most of the documents and will have the editors > pen - a form of voting if you will and reasonable to recuse themselves > from the formal vote. At the times that the RSE does not have the pen, > they have an interest - I'd say even a contractual interest - in > ensuring that the documents are consistent with what's possible within > their own work plan. Hence they get a vote. > It seems to me that the fact that they have a contractual interest actually is a strong reason why they should *not* get a vote. -Ekr > Mike > > > >> Seriously - let=E2=80=99s avoid =E2=80=9Cjust a contractor=E2=80=9D th= inking and pre > positioning ourselves to ignore the hired expertise of such a person. > > That was indeed my whole point, and the reason why there needs to be a > culture of listening to them. > > > > Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten > > > > -- > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future > --000000000000ea7eb205b76621ba Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 1:21 PM Micha= el StJohns <msj@nthpermutation= .com> wrote:
On 12/23/2020 8:14 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
>> On 2020-12-24, at 01:46, StJohns, Michael <msj@nthpermutation.com> wrot= e:
>>
>> Why are we trying to treat the RSE in a manner that=E2=80=99s less= than any other IETF participant?
> I was talking about the review body.
So was I.
>
>> I see no reason to make this a non voting position with the caveat= that as usual they will recuse themselves from their own document.
> Since many strategy documents will come from the RSE, that would make = them recuse themselves a lot.
> The point of the review body is to create pushback for the authors and= the WG, and the RSE can=E2=80=99t be author and pushback at the same time.=

Not exactly.=C2=A0 Pushback is the wrong word here.=C2=A0 Basically, the re= view
body is evaluating documents for a) meets the requirements of the
streams, b) consistent with the consensus strategy.=C2=A0=C2=A0 I expect as= you do
that the RSE will author most of the documents and will have the editors pen - a form of voting if you will and reasonable to recuse themselves
from the formal vote.=C2=A0 At the times that the RSE does not have the pen= ,
they have an interest - I'd say even a contractual interest - in
ensuring that the documents are consistent with what's possible within =
their own work plan.=C2=A0 Hence they get a vote.

=
It seems to me that the fact that they have a contractual intere= st actually is a strong reason why they should *not* get a vote.
=
-Ekr



Mike


>> Seriously - let=E2=80=99s avoid =E2=80=9Cjust a contractor=E2=80= =9D thinking and pre positioning ourselves to ignore the hired expertise of= such a person.
> That was indeed my whole point, and the reason why there needs to be a= culture of listening to them.
>
> Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten
>

--
Rfced-future mailing list
Rfced-future@iab.= org
https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
--000000000000ea7eb205b76621ba-- From nobody Sat Dec 26 15:18:40 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 491933A10A7 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 15:18:38 -0800 (PST) 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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-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 wjJuxpQ5-xOA for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 15:18:36 -0800 (PST) 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 357463A10A4 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 15:18:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D3KVz6rthz6GTl6; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 15:18:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1609024715; bh=EC2kMk92fE0q61PInVLQyJi3fU33H91pDAWGXUtNmQg=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=cFEOPegik1E8D5V9s/I7tgRYKVJuq6OPH+8hnSoKLvFIptKoisd1QyI+5MbHMi/T8 7jwcD6FMIYLm6WY+rv1w0KCN0BF0h872awTRC3IUbA6BqxMv+9hU7cTTnMpawDeGW9 /M55elKr/sd2hOxUh2QGiO72zbok6n6XZASHpBp4= X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (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 4D3KVy2GLMz6GR6K; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 15:18:34 -0800 (PST) To: Eric Rescorla , Michael StJohns Cc: Carsten Bormann , rfced-future@iab.org References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <441ca4b4-98d6-06d3-fab1-17455ff6d559@huitema.net> <0726262c-18ea-ae3e-c6a5-ad127dfd36c6@joelhalpern.com> <1A07F196-3DBA-4D63-95EB-F7537BAC73C4@tzi.org> <651D0579-7425-4D2D-9558-B323C9D3B101@tzi.org> <334630d4-a0f3-5442-f3c5-b71b4adac322@nthpermutation.com> From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: <0509e69c-e82f-b115-eeb3-6ededb553a58@joelhalpern.com> Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2020 18:18:33 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 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: [Rfced-future] WG Document review body X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2020 23:18:38 -0000 I am trying to figure out when the question of a vote for the RSx would matter. As I understand it we are discussing a review and approval body made up of the 4 stream leads and the RSx? And we are assuming that the RSx will be able and expected to participate in the discussions in that body? So the only time the vote from the RSx can matter is if the 4 other members are split 2-2? Trying to write rules for an assumed result in the case of a 2-2- tie seems like asking for trouble. Having a professional who can break such times seems like a very good idea. Am I missing something? Yours, Joel On 12/26/2020 6:08 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 1:21 PM Michael StJohns > wrote: > > On 12/23/2020 8:14 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > > Hi Mike, > > > >> On 2020-12-24, at 01:46, StJohns, Michael > > wrote: > >> > >> Why are we trying to treat the RSE in a manner that’s less than > any other IETF participant? > > I was talking about the review body. > So was I. > > > >> I see no reason to make this a non voting position with the > caveat that as usual they will recuse themselves from their own > document. > > Since many strategy documents will come from the RSE, that would > make them recuse themselves a lot. > > The point of the review body is to create pushback for the > authors and the WG, and the RSE can’t be author and pushback at the > same time. > > Not exactly.  Pushback is the wrong word here.  Basically, the review > body is evaluating documents for a) meets the requirements of the > streams, b) consistent with the consensus strategy.   I expect as > you do > that the RSE will author most of the documents and will have the > editors > pen - a form of voting if you will and reasonable to recuse themselves > from the formal vote.  At the times that the RSE does not have the pen, > they have an interest - I'd say even a contractual interest - in > ensuring that the documents are consistent with what's possible within > their own work plan.  Hence they get a vote. > > > It seems to me that the fact that they have a contractual interest > actually is a strong reason why they should *not* get a vote. > > -Ekr > > > > Mike > > > >> Seriously - let’s avoid “just a contractor” thinking and pre > positioning ourselves to ignore the hired expertise of such a person. > > That was indeed my whole point, and the reason why there needs to > be a culture of listening to them. > > > > Grüße, Carsten > > > > -- > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future > > From nobody Sat Dec 26 15:37:09 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C5E63A0BE9 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 15:37:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yy_B2Ypqzxv3 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 15:37:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lf1-x131.google.com (mail-lf1-x131.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::131]) (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 D7FBD3A0BE3 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 15:37:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf1-x131.google.com with SMTP id m25so16271429lfc.11 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 15:37:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ImY4JwRGub8WJK/9S8qs7P27phgsIQAv1Yx8ucyzz9o=; b=toRi98hgGigW1g7UDgImAMZQJ3hRCtJsyrtLRB+VLSsUa2eyZ6wH1wc+T5kSywAjpF HBN+QWFrwUzXymnBSElHDdXURtarktun+KG7Dj1F8YJ7255x03/p46QvgQVt9qHyVnKF MYlStd5AbJGTi6k1K5J71scS9UEaXQAO6D11XbJ7pEmmw5n2VKz5kdO8kvxafu/OHg5J R2Us6IF3DLVxPlK3I1gdseLfgX7JnzrMZjcRMjOiSCwez5mG/R7Sd4bAogCEbIeUNU1z ikxxzBdxhlReC2OgbC13jGT3FuuEyxtxMKIH/b1XeMvBI1AITAVOvUvRQsS8mhLPS9BM CeVA== 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=ImY4JwRGub8WJK/9S8qs7P27phgsIQAv1Yx8ucyzz9o=; b=rpzZ4z0IO3YqXP6YzsMYqeoZO91NRWVuWma9AAQFOdC/9m3jOLMB8vrrpX3sykFj5j Kpjp70oss69gTg5RYseK+Um2YfZhcenVXrATmdzfkMNoI/CnPtsDzoi/Wz+dIYRuWosa RSZV81Ga8SxKSwjKexqZnrCHL8xzJiaV3XK7JnHr1xrWBADOImDYaJER4hom96MYp+Yq Qnyt6qZXPgw6OVFieo5i4sNfymn+N2WVUtYOe8vifWj0cBL7LCepcWBWHBchRe3cb3Rk 74U5a1DGXLUzGs2kzqA8Hy6RE3Dxi7oMF9xkfn3FFDqOhTm/O8XUiLyXrbk88c1YBTkZ 9Elw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532Hvs8rDsM/e52zEM1XiWW43cCXoQ8Pl03zOYpzIOYjnStDu/32 Dtsag62hRCUOQQh/stHwOmkAJ7Zae/BM/0wLwbvM4g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxoe8t9I09IcMRAl7BPL0XooRcjwXDtsFQYmqCXwI+nicBHzmsymjml+JMfsAxIk/Ae4vkFayytuKPDKLtfDNA= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9f53:: with SMTP id v19mr18089485ljk.109.1609025823191; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 15:37:03 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <441ca4b4-98d6-06d3-fab1-17455ff6d559@huitema.net> <0726262c-18ea-ae3e-c6a5-ad127dfd36c6@joelhalpern.com> <1A07F196-3DBA-4D63-95EB-F7537BAC73C4@tzi.org> <651D0579-7425-4D2D-9558-B323C9D3B101@tzi.org> <334630d4-a0f3-5442-f3c5-b71b4adac322@nthpermutation.com> <0509e69c-e82f-b115-eeb3-6ededb553a58@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: <0509e69c-e82f-b115-eeb3-6ededb553a58@joelhalpern.com> From: Eric Rescorla Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2020 15:36:27 -0800 Message-ID: To: "Joel M. Halpern" Cc: Michael StJohns , Carsten Bormann , rfced-future@iab.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a0434205b76684ea" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] WG Document review body X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2020 23:37:07 -0000 --000000000000a0434205b76684ea Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It might be useful to take a step back and ask what the purpose of the review body is in these cases. The structure under discussion here is one in which we have documents which have achieved consensus (potentially rough consensus) in the WG. I take the purpose of the review body to act as a final check on whether those documents are acceptable. In that context, the purpose of the stream managers constituting the review body would presumably be to ask whether the documents in question work for the streams. Correct? -Ekr On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 3:18 PM Joel M. Halpern wrote= : > I am trying to figure out when the question of a vote for the RSx would > matter. > > As I understand it we are discussing a review and approval body made up > of the 4 stream leads and the RSx? And we are assuming that the RSx > will be able and expected to participate in the discussions in that body? > > So the only time the vote from the RSx can matter is if the 4 other > members are split 2-2? Trying to write rules for an assumed result in > the case of a 2-2- tie seems like asking for trouble. Having a > professional who can break such times seems like a very good idea. > > Am I missing something? > > Yours, > Joel > > On 12/26/2020 6:08 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 1:21 PM Michael StJohns > > wrote: > > > > On 12/23/2020 8:14 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > > > Hi Mike, > > > > > >> On 2020-12-24, at 01:46, StJohns, Michael > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Why are we trying to treat the RSE in a manner that=E2=80=99s l= ess than > > any other IETF participant? > > > I was talking about the review body. > > So was I. > > > > > >> I see no reason to make this a non voting position with the > > caveat that as usual they will recuse themselves from their own > > document. > > > Since many strategy documents will come from the RSE, that would > > make them recuse themselves a lot. > > > The point of the review body is to create pushback for the > > authors and the WG, and the RSE can=E2=80=99t be author and pushbac= k at the > > same time. > > > > Not exactly. Pushback is the wrong word here. Basically, the revi= ew > > body is evaluating documents for a) meets the requirements of the > > streams, b) consistent with the consensus strategy. I expect as > > you do > > that the RSE will author most of the documents and will have the > > editors > > pen - a form of voting if you will and reasonable to recuse > themselves > > from the formal vote. At the times that the RSE does not have the > pen, > > they have an interest - I'd say even a contractual interest - in > > ensuring that the documents are consistent with what's possible > within > > their own work plan. Hence they get a vote. > > > > > > It seems to me that the fact that they have a contractual interest > > actually is a strong reason why they should *not* get a vote. > > > > -Ekr > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > >> Seriously - let=E2=80=99s avoid =E2=80=9Cjust a contractor=E2= =80=9D thinking and pre > > positioning ourselves to ignore the hired expertise of such a perso= n. > > > That was indeed my whole point, and the reason why there needs t= o > > be a culture of listening to them. > > > > > > Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten > > > > > > > -- > > Rfced-future mailing list > > Rfced-future@iab.org > > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future > > > > > --000000000000a0434205b76684ea Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It might be useful to take a step back and ask what t= he purpose of the review body is in these cases.

T= he structure under discussion here is one in which we have documents which = have achieved consensus (potentially rough consensus) in the WG. I take the= purpose of the review body to act as a final check on whether those docume= nts are acceptable. In that context, the purpose of the stream managers con= stituting the review body would presumably be to ask whether the documents = in question work for the streams. Correct?

-Ek= r


On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 3:18 PM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
I am trying to figure ou= t when the question of a vote for the RSx would
matter.

As I understand it we are discussing a review and approval body made up of the 4 stream leads and the RSx?=C2=A0 And we are assuming that the RSx <= br> will be able and expected to participate in the discussions in that body?
So the only time the vote from the RSx can matter is if the 4 other
members are split 2-2?=C2=A0 Trying to write rules for an assumed result in=
the case of a 2-2- tie seems like asking for trouble.=C2=A0 Having a
professional who can break such times seems like a very good idea.

Am I missing something?

Yours,
Joel

On 12/26/2020 6:08 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 1:21 PM Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com
> <mailto:msj@nthpermutation.com>> wrote:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0On 12/23/2020 8:14 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > Hi Mike,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >> On 2020-12-24, at 01:46, StJohns, Michael=
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<msj@nthpermutation.com <mailto:msj@nthpermutation.com>> wrot= e:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >> Why are we trying to treat the RSE in a m= anner that=E2=80=99s less than
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0any other IETF participant?
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > I was talking about the review body.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0So was I.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >> I see no reason to make this a non voting= position with the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0caveat that as usual they will recuse themselves fr= om their own
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0document.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > Since many strategy documents will come from = the RSE, that would
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0make them recuse themselves a lot.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > The point of the review body is to create pus= hback for the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0authors and the WG, and the RSE can=E2=80=99t be au= thor and pushback at the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0same time.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Not exactly.=C2=A0 Pushback is the wrong word here.= =C2=A0 Basically, the review
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0body is evaluating documents for a) meets the requi= rements of the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0streams, b) consistent with the consensus strategy.= =C2=A0=C2=A0 I expect as
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0you do
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0that the RSE will author most of the documents and = will have the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0editors
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0pen - a form of voting if you will and reasonable t= o recuse themselves
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0from the formal vote.=C2=A0 At the times that the R= SE does not have the pen,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0they have an interest - I'd say even a contract= ual interest - in
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0ensuring that the documents are consistent with wha= t's possible within
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0their own work plan.=C2=A0 Hence they get a vote. >
>
> It seems to me that the fact that they have a contractual interest > actually is a strong reason why they should *not* get a vote.
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Mike
>
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >> Seriously - let=E2=80=99s avoid =E2=80=9C= just a contractor=E2=80=9D thinking and pre
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0positioning ourselves to ignore the hired expertise= of such a person.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > That was indeed my whole point, and the reaso= n why there needs to
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0be a culture of listening to them.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 > Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 >
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0--
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Rfced-future mailing list
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Rfced-future@iab.org <mailto:Rfced-future@iab.org>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://www.iab.org/mailman= /listinfo/rfced-future
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<https://www.iab.org/mai= lman/listinfo/rfced-future>
>
--000000000000a0434205b76684ea-- From nobody Sat Dec 26 15:41:49 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 642B13A0BEF for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 15:41:47 -0800 (PST) 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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-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 GrF3y5Uu8uzA for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 15:41:46 -0800 (PST) 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 E99453A0BE9 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 15:41:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D3L1j5J0sz6GQtM; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 15:41:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1609026105; bh=5a3zbFhhzR8c/IWr50jV4INJsC8g7qefbiH0j8aXDX0=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=ox/MYjVilciflYxv0rzf6bnL9sui7GTlVMTR8BtdRt5aGgjJfxlih3MFDbqC3gU3T QXt1h7gjR+vjvT2YQDMEoS+d0udNrRwKRbNFzd7dxCuidPfZev/F16u44iISXJK4fN TiVN6xJGrCkC0lo/8ijRbEIka9wnpSmZKfnBcXIQ= X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (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 4D3L1j191Sz6GJDD; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 15:41:44 -0800 (PST) To: Eric Rescorla Cc: rfced-future@iab.org References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <441ca4b4-98d6-06d3-fab1-17455ff6d559@huitema.net> <0726262c-18ea-ae3e-c6a5-ad127dfd36c6@joelhalpern.com> <1A07F196-3DBA-4D63-95EB-F7537BAC73C4@tzi.org> <651D0579-7425-4D2D-9558-B323C9D3B101@tzi.org> <334630d4-a0f3-5442-f3c5-b71b4adac322@nthpermutation.com> <0509e69c-e82f-b115-eeb3-6ededb553a58@joelhalpern.com> From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: <102d582a-c02c-e075-e780-2b75c9b8335f@joelhalpern.com> Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2020 18:41:44 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 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: [Rfced-future] WG Document review body X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2020 23:41:47 -0000 And I presume the RSx is there to check both for general technical publishing problems and issues for the series as a whole. In all cases, we would hope and expect the issues to have been raised and properly resoled in the quasi-WG. As I understand it, this body is to help prevent things from going wrong. Yours, Joel On 12/26/2020 6:36 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > It might be useful to take a step back and ask what the purpose of the > review body is in these cases. > > The structure under discussion here is one in which we have documents > which have achieved consensus (potentially rough consensus) in the WG. I > take the purpose of the review body to act as a final check on whether > those documents are acceptable. In that context, the purpose of the > stream managers constituting the review body would presumably be to ask > whether the documents in question work for the streams. Correct? > > -Ekr > > > On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 3:18 PM Joel M. Halpern > wrote: > > I am trying to figure out when the question of a vote for the RSx would > matter. > > As I understand it we are discussing a review and approval body made up > of the 4 stream leads and the RSx?  And we are assuming that the RSx > will be able and expected to participate in the discussions in that > body? > > So the only time the vote from the RSx can matter is if the 4 other > members are split 2-2?  Trying to write rules for an assumed result in > the case of a 2-2- tie seems like asking for trouble.  Having a > professional who can break such times seems like a very good idea. > > Am I missing something? > > Yours, > Joel > > On 12/26/2020 6:08 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 1:21 PM Michael StJohns > > > >> > wrote: > > > >     On 12/23/2020 8:14 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > >      > Hi Mike, > >      > > >      >> On 2020-12-24, at 01:46, StJohns, Michael > >      > >> wrote: > >      >> > >      >> Why are we trying to treat the RSE in a manner that’s > less than > >     any other IETF participant? > >      > I was talking about the review body. > >     So was I. > >      > > >      >> I see no reason to make this a non voting position with the > >     caveat that as usual they will recuse themselves from their own > >     document. > >      > Since many strategy documents will come from the RSE, that > would > >     make them recuse themselves a lot. > >      > The point of the review body is to create pushback for the > >     authors and the WG, and the RSE can’t be author and pushback > at the > >     same time. > > > >     Not exactly.  Pushback is the wrong word here.  Basically, > the review > >     body is evaluating documents for a) meets the requirements of the > >     streams, b) consistent with the consensus strategy.   I expect as > >     you do > >     that the RSE will author most of the documents and will have the > >     editors > >     pen - a form of voting if you will and reasonable to recuse > themselves > >     from the formal vote.  At the times that the RSE does not > have the pen, > >     they have an interest - I'd say even a contractual interest - in > >     ensuring that the documents are consistent with what's > possible within > >     their own work plan.  Hence they get a vote. > > > > > > It seems to me that the fact that they have a contractual interest > > actually is a strong reason why they should *not* get a vote. > > > > -Ekr > > > > > > > >     Mike > > > > > >      >> Seriously - let’s avoid “just a contractor” thinking and pre > >     positioning ourselves to ignore the hired expertise of such a > person. > >      > That was indeed my whole point, and the reason why there > needs to > >     be a culture of listening to them. > >      > > >      > Grüße, Carsten > >      > > > > >     -- > >     Rfced-future mailing list > > Rfced-future@iab.org > > > > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future > > >      > > > > > From nobody Sat Dec 26 15:48:39 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A8B63A0BFF for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 15:48:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vXhFPweDlL-z for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 15:48:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qv1-xf35.google.com (mail-qv1-xf35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f35]) (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 327093A0BF8 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 15:48:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qv1-xf35.google.com with SMTP id a13so3545052qvv.0 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 15:48:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:from:to:references:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language; bh=sag92LA8pyY5F9VEZlGT9KDMzu2ys7hEuj9ayAvoGgc=; b=tPc5TsB8LP9Csv3qBpO/hu7xgI0qFNmOlLstavnRDXFlk6/rqOWykQOM1S99cILBjp gCwbjxtSzPJ9PgVlYapHNBk3tgat2Bj9UYeBT2CXC+kTXI424QJGSf5iK99eAIWDlLXi V1A8h5kY1pP09WLcAaUMAEx6LBhe1o3OW77rAXMVsSCoJ19qQp/8i3BuKBZiw9CdUgLz 36rdVieppixWvz3zkBHvxvNw+CICJF5Ppc2TCuG6kn04swqGVbVAfIdtoylhdoHkj4yj kXWsnmggz1sovm6z059MsKxOYZo03gGUNuafXzSXluBuIUJaOoJsU+SQoJ/uWRq7+yk5 CXTg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:from:to:references:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=sag92LA8pyY5F9VEZlGT9KDMzu2ys7hEuj9ayAvoGgc=; b=A6NiT88RbrYSfXLzqTQFFPPh4sNqLGCWWADi/x2ogF0yCZHvxMKvr2cpCY78PWDuil GBA/DVsKqy+gRv4PlahWBtusRzBZLHVJb8l56fzPjaRmkw8LYunGyf0ZEkb8NivXZOEJ +p/dpVugA5PlJRGyEcFYh5rnpsLQJtGCgZD5X6Xm0U/1jC1iM/MQpFGqRuSWYp8ndPyt t7ScWxeo7RgK7z4MEHidLqzjIBAo2xWjSG5dHQnYr5hB/TL+Ufa2r9cJNfJlwTjxzeaC oBS38aV7yG+mSPEXdgipFf3TqWUjP0UaTXccSMMWQzN0mDOHh0pPX9Z+rZXdGffY20qm ZqeA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5309tuEmFAZdNH+hsUbygzoMGedYdqPZvvfYg8E/4D5OQw8aC9aE kYM+MWi7M80tEVHAB5oSfxSBVq8ZW8xfVZts X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwVZMS/4Y7Nab9aB/gPn40QyzVZh4aDhWofwRITKGXl2Kcd36aqR4yoAmzXF71khuiOZw3swg== X-Received: by 2002:a0c:b4a8:: with SMTP id c40mr41416580qve.60.1609026513611; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 15:48:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.23] (pool-108-28-189-254.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [108.28.189.254]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m41sm12807354qtc.28.2020.12.26.15.48.32 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 26 Dec 2020 15:48:32 -0800 (PST) From: Michael StJohns To: rfced-future@iab.org References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <056684f2-ab2c-5b85-4dfd-bada78e1e528@joelhalpern.com> <07aa9478-ca0c-aed3-8a9a-312a78172a5f@joelhalpern.com> <2f29a27d-0231-0ad4-cd8a-24dcfe5666b3@nthpermutation.com> Message-ID: <8be85e80-e093-a483-4bfd-4831bb684ab8@nthpermutation.com> Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2020 18:48:31 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2f29a27d-0231-0ad4-cd8a-24dcfe5666b3@nthpermutation.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------BC4CAE05FF6E96B49398F825" Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] quasi-WG discussion procedures X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2020 23:48:38 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------BC4CAE05FF6E96B49398F825 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Slight edit in line On 12/26/2020 4:15 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: > On 12/26/2020 8:17 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: >> Hi everyone! >> >> So… to be clear, I think what we are now saying is the following: >> >>> |All strategic body meetings are open to the public, all discussions >>> of issues *will* *initially* take place on open mailing lists, and >>> anyone is welcome to comment / discuss.  The |strategic body may >>> decide *by rough consensus* to use additional forms of communication >>> that are consistent with [RFC2418]. > > Instead: > > > "All strategic bodies are open to the public.  All strategic issue > discussions will take place on open mailing lists, and anyone is > welcome to comment/discuss.  On a document by document basis, the > strategic body may decide by rough consensus, and with the assent of > the designated editors, to use additional forms of communication > consistent with [RFC2418] for the production of a given document.  Use > of those forms of communication does not replace the responsibility of > the editors to bring major strategic issues with the document to the > mailing list." > > s/strategic bodies/strategic body meetings/ > Github is pretty much the worst way to have a discussion such as we're > currently having and I expect that things like writing an SOW or even > deciding what the charter might be needs to be kept on the mailing > list.  It may make sense for a given document for the editing of > various content, but not for the day to day operation of the group. > > Later, Mike > > >> >> >> Please indicate your concerns with/edits to the above approach by the >> 8th of January. >> >> Eliot >> >> > --------------BC4CAE05FF6E96B49398F825 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Slight edit in line

On 12/26/2020 4:15 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
On 12/26/2020 8:17 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
Hi everyone!

So… to be clear, I think what we are now saying is the following:

All strategic body meetings are open to the public, all discussions of issues will initially take place on open mailing lists, and anyone is welcome to comment / discuss.  The strategic body may decide by rough consensus to use additional forms of communication that are consistent with [RFC2418].

Instead:


"All strategic bodies are open to the public.  All strategic issue discussions will take place on open mailing lists, and anyone is welcome to comment/discuss.  On a document by document basis, the strategic body may decide by rough consensus, and with the assent of the designated editors, to use additional forms of communication consistent with [RFC2418] for the production of a given document.  Use of those forms of communication does not replace the responsibility of the editors to bring major strategic issues with the document to the mailing list."


s/strategic bodies/strategic body meetings/


Github is pretty much the worst way to have a discussion such as we're currently having and I expect that things like writing an SOW or even deciding what the charter might be needs to be kept on the mailing list.  It may make sense for a given document for the editing of various content, but not for the day to day operation of the group.

Later, Mike




Please indicate your concerns with/edits to the above approach by the 8th of January.

Eliot




--------------BC4CAE05FF6E96B49398F825-- From nobody Sat Dec 26 16:05:33 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A284F3A10DB for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 16:05:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.89 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.89 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] 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 mKSCIr-N9IKQ for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 16:05:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx43-out1.antispamcloud.com (mx43-out1.antispamcloud.com [138.201.61.189]) (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 D5C0F3A10D8 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 16:05:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from xse373.mail2web.com ([66.113.197.119] helo=xse.mail2web.com) by mx135.antispamcloud.com with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ktJYm-000SON-EV for rfced-future@iab.org; Sun, 27 Dec 2020 01:05:22 +0100 Received: from xsmtp22.mail2web.com (unknown [10.100.68.61]) by xse.mail2web.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D3LXr4Xk8zLmX for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 16:05:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.5.2.17] (helo=xmail07.myhosting.com) by xsmtp22.mail2web.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ktJYi-0003Qw-HM for rfced-future@iab.org; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 16:05:16 -0800 Received: (qmail 22019 invoked from network); 27 Dec 2020 00:05:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO [192.168.1.106]) (Authenticated-user:_huitema@huitema.net@[172.58.43.253]) (envelope-sender ) by xmail07.myhosting.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with ESMTPA for ; 27 Dec 2020 00:05:16 -0000 To: Eric Rescorla , "Joel M. Halpern" Cc: rfced-future@iab.org, Carsten Bormann , Michael StJohns References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <441ca4b4-98d6-06d3-fab1-17455ff6d559@huitema.net> <0726262c-18ea-ae3e-c6a5-ad127dfd36c6@joelhalpern.com> <1A07F196-3DBA-4D63-95EB-F7537BAC73C4@tzi.org> <651D0579-7425-4D2D-9558-B323C9D3B101@tzi.org> <334630d4-a0f3-5442-f3c5-b71b4adac322@nthpermutation.com> <0509e69c-e82f-b115-eeb3-6ededb553a58@joelhalpern.com> From: Christian Huitema Message-ID: <8beda877-711d-0a00-d89a-60fe1acefe5c@huitema.net> Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2020 16:05:15 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-Originating-IP: 66.113.197.119 X-Spampanel-Domain: xsmtpout.mail2web.com X-Spampanel-Username: 66.113.197.0/24 Authentication-Results: antispamcloud.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=66.113.197.0/24@xsmtpout.mail2web.com X-Spampanel-Outgoing-Class: unsure X-Spampanel-Outgoing-Evidence: Combined (0.15) X-Recommended-Action: accept X-Filter-ID: Pt3MvcO5N4iKaDQ5O6lkdGlMVN6RH8bjRMzItlySaT9WLQux0N3HQm8ltz8rnu+BPUtbdvnXkggZ 3YnVId/Y5jcf0yeVQAvfjHznO7+bT5yXEnUqtuiszqcStXlDoE9S53HEEk0VSrq03gtFxbC/KgU9 Cdcr8qmYPSRcQJ8qHWVizSh2f1rWsE3ZhyRR3OEySxIRXVMlFuiz/acFNeeXtxN2fFxZWB9eYgpR BRu3UlDHMLIJYRi1cXH9Dbm+IxLVOYls9BJhJ1jb0Wp7qcRKLJotTbzF8bFslzcWfB/84WVsvCwp YJpdb4B2L4Z5wQyKkVWClPVvbW5lVyQanRxw5hTHswbbB/ha+ZWrSAi8SkwqWAikMcSxTAWn8RCv ieGEqjG/gXZAaRh1X6LVetRf2ZYIiHqfCgG4wrA3w4/kQTYKxDHA9JN9J4k4XZq11JQkMemT4rxn nByU11Ftkqf3f/PF3GUV+KdBBqrnCX8j0Gi8Ksk+aedMfNWSnJswrtlNtZo3HPHi5Q+jjsF5dcBx ehWYzrkgsp4/Fysgb2cPV4IH0+lPwKr4i5mAANUcVraZYOaeuiH/yEdZH8S1+TgcJBOjh0vPxcQO jKKOrYIQYpwamUdylUIKhf3z2GAHxH7Iiihnln5nLwsYugixy853dgGI409Uexq5zP1TE60A1w4L XnGBYrHfcn/l+4ZTb4aOb3UQT3xbkHqpqmyCe4PiKVv0wNAmy0z4NCWU5AbBg6tDVPQ6fMev1BMP vQ9qu4cW0z6bhalFEM/pjPCQA+BAljSV828O44QI4Qc5jYol9ei3h1ESmlc3/lS5x7qxkdlaBmYv N/BBF+4gUwydYyVBicLGFxhwXIVYWoINSVAPF69RXxKF5tPxTxfD0dMN+t5ZoEcv+jmqjGhuQBUH UpIKI0mFYlBQ+5lUWGQj1IRdLz6N9/YGRrhMRGhIOTxMW00yF8F1u0YDQf8cLP9taeSLFY0fPBnF 89BphpBNlUg+TzHwBTL1+6vDOMemz/4I88NDcmnEJ4r7C+SwLRamrhQTd3PrpJpP5ewAjeqkzRNl ucyd+NO2McmveAr4ch9F7rE89jihx+Za/cV70jOJzN2r4A== X-Report-Abuse-To: spam@quarantine11.antispamcloud.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] WG Document review body X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2020 00:05:32 -0000 On 12/26/2020 3:36 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > It might be useful to take a step back and ask what the purpose of the > review body is in these cases. > > The structure under discussion here is one in which we have documents > which have achieved consensus (potentially rough consensus) in the WG. > I take the purpose of the review body to act as a final check on > whether those documents are acceptable. In that context, the purpose > of the stream managers constituting the review body would presumably > be to ask whether the documents in question work for the streams. Correct? In my mind, the review body would play pretty much the same role that the IESG plays for WG. There would be two purposes. First, check that the WG process was executed properly, for example that consensus is not declared too hastily. Second, check that the documents proposed by the WG meet the need of the community -- by opposition for example to the WG going down a blind alley of group-think. The review committee members might be able to assess that the documents meet community requirement themselves, as "work the streams" implies. Maybe. Or maybe not. The IESG does the equivalent by performing an IETF last call, asking reviews from various directorates, etc. I struggle to see any equivalent of directorate reviews in this case, but having a community wide last call would probably make sense. -- Christian Huitema From nobody Sat Dec 26 18:11:09 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88B013A0EB9 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 18:11:07 -0800 (PST) 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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZLWkWd1qj-u0 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 18:11:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qv1-xf2f.google.com (mail-qv1-xf2f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2f]) (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 46E873A116E for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 18:11:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qv1-xf2f.google.com with SMTP id et9so3600324qvb.10 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 18:11:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=2DVdbtRatfu07pifS2BmJk+NouAY9crufwA1K/4pnCg=; b=yp6eA+df4ovIob4FSxdHUgOScAtW9PUkCI4raPfwjkxEbBzMc3Bjy51A3uJ6YTt2Ca F3wezEfErX//OIwYjuMxbMmxTIH++SGH+bkzRh9jHeE82zkRc8JtFtV+/SvhUbIBtHaG ya989BKIlkIvpyE44lGm+7H6V4Xza+qDuHr5ckzmPkUSCcl7zDTGq1jrqQp2SECye9BU g/IVsfZ4YlQWtfErg3Q37VNhkFIsRcK/iXJe83+oYC+ZC2uCxIquIysl4QQ1PSOCn1UM gswB5zoKVbdzQgVp3hSX8IKdsJOOvIQ0j3RHZY6ZJBJs1Q4kKwChsXwHXGdsAUOUEZ34 +nFQ== 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; bh=2DVdbtRatfu07pifS2BmJk+NouAY9crufwA1K/4pnCg=; b=uW7DGwaOIcgeswBLOyLnrCE4M9wvBGgjHXSrDoHMVVknude23eFQUCXLI6N1ZUiSzD Y4zjR95vlQ6oi7XuE5tWKzaFzwLqmfZv57015mCCXkrybuNojWywJUe8Vi3yqk8wgRm3 cY5nRzU8Z7cvg+MHKt6ykdgwv4g/eRAtn9ojOutf01xtM4bVRJ6LXr5QXSE4j/FpvWbq W2YsYoEExD/MUfZeRNRKJovAzp7yqbqaLCNRvTs5rmxODAMcVuxAzbDF8RgvGhXgJjlm UPFYJOdj7DOewg+XJzD13ccIa+VnRYokaUXZJIKiN4MWxL//iJze+PK5uBA7RyDC5T2a vAYQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533L4yEUTDF7d4p9iM43Swo5Yu+C7ivKQOFGvPE7AH8hf0fyMlCK 23KcPT9+z3gyeLTrdS+7+ytIbQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwdQyIbyjLV8ygnhB4829hlA3NTCKBCVzwNvN9Q2rbS9Vn0xv92PuOt+gfnW8Zc9Fw2PX67rg== X-Received: by 2002:a0c:f14c:: with SMTP id y12mr11791311qvl.23.1609035061889; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 18:11:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.23] (pool-108-28-189-254.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [108.28.189.254]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v4sm20630282qth.16.2020.12.26.18.11.00 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 26 Dec 2020 18:11:01 -0800 (PST) To: Eric Rescorla Cc: Carsten Bormann , rfced-future@iab.org, "Joel M. Halpern" References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <441ca4b4-98d6-06d3-fab1-17455ff6d559@huitema.net> <0726262c-18ea-ae3e-c6a5-ad127dfd36c6@joelhalpern.com> <1A07F196-3DBA-4D63-95EB-F7537BAC73C4@tzi.org> <651D0579-7425-4D2D-9558-B323C9D3B101@tzi.org> <334630d4-a0f3-5442-f3c5-b71b4adac322@nthpermutation.com> From: Michael StJohns Message-ID: <5dd1338a-1e40-008f-3d88-f7229e741b80@nthpermutation.com> Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2020 21:11:00 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------D5B4BD7F0FA882120C413870" Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] WG Document review body X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2020 02:11:08 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------D5B4BD7F0FA882120C413870 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Inline On 12/26/2020 6:08 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 1:21 PM Michael StJohns > > wrote: > > On 12/23/2020 8:14 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > > Hi Mike, > > > >> On 2020-12-24, at 01:46, StJohns, Michael > > wrote: > >> > >> Why are we trying to treat the RSE in a manner that’s less than > any other IETF participant? > > I was talking about the review body. > So was I. > > > >> I see no reason to make this a non voting position with the > caveat that as usual they will recuse themselves from their own > document. > > Since many strategy documents will come from the RSE, that would > make them recuse themselves a lot. > > The point of the review body is to create pushback for the > authors and the WG, and the RSE can’t be author and pushback at > the same time. > > Not exactly.  Pushback is the wrong word here.  Basically, the review > body is evaluating documents for a) meets the requirements of the > streams, b) consistent with the consensus strategy.   I expect as > you do > that the RSE will author most of the documents and will have the > editors > pen - a form of voting if you will and reasonable to recuse > themselves > from the formal vote.  At the times that the RSE does not have the > pen, > they have an interest - I'd say even a contractual interest - in > ensuring that the documents are consistent with what's possible > within > their own work plan.  Hence they get a vote. > > > It seems to me that the fact that they have a contractual interest > actually is a strong reason why they should *not* get a vote. A contractual interest is not (necessarily) a conflict of interest.   As a document author they already have a vote of a sort so no need to double up and give them a formal vote for self-authored documents.  As someone charged (contractually) with making sure that the series documents meet what's possible within the RFC series system of course they would get a vote for documents they don't author.  The stream editors represent their streams.  The RSE represents the RFC series.  Both are required. Later, Mike > > -Ekr > > > > Mike > > > >> Seriously - let’s avoid “just a contractor” thinking and pre > positioning ourselves to ignore the hired expertise of such a person. > > That was indeed my whole point, and the reason why there needs > to be a culture of listening to them. > > > > Grüße, Carsten > > > > -- > Rfced-future mailing list > Rfced-future@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future > > --------------D5B4BD7F0FA882120C413870 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Inline

On 12/26/2020 6:08 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:


On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 1:21 PM Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com> wrote:
On 12/23/2020 8:14 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
>> On 2020-12-24, at 01:46, StJohns, Michael <msj@nthpermutation.com> wrote:
>>
>> Why are we trying to treat the RSE in a manner that’s less than any other IETF participant?
> I was talking about the review body.
So was I.
>
>> I see no reason to make this a non voting position with the caveat that as usual they will recuse themselves from their own document.
> Since many strategy documents will come from the RSE, that would make them recuse themselves a lot.
> The point of the review body is to create pushback for the authors and the WG, and the RSE can’t be author and pushback at the same time.

Not exactly.  Pushback is the wrong word here.  Basically, the review
body is evaluating documents for a) meets the requirements of the
streams, b) consistent with the consensus strategy.   I expect as you do
that the RSE will author most of the documents and will have the editors
pen - a form of voting if you will and reasonable to recuse themselves
from the formal vote.  At the times that the RSE does not have the pen,
they have an interest - I'd say even a contractual interest - in
ensuring that the documents are consistent with what's possible within
their own work plan.  Hence they get a vote.

It seems to me that the fact that they have a contractual interest actually is a strong reason why they should *not* get a vote.


A contractual interest is not (necessarily) a conflict of interest.   As a document author they already have a vote of a sort so no need to double up and give them a formal vote for self-authored documents.  As someone charged (contractually) with making sure that the series documents meet what's possible within the RFC series system of course they would get a vote for documents they don't author.  The stream editors represent their streams.  The RSE represents the RFC series.  Both are required.

Later, Mike




-Ekr



Mike


>> Seriously - let’s avoid “just a contractor” thinking and pre positioning ourselves to ignore the hired expertise of such a person.
> That was indeed my whole point, and the reason why there needs to be a culture of listening to them.
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>

--
Rfced-future mailing list
Rfced-future@iab.org
https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future


--------------D5B4BD7F0FA882120C413870-- From nobody Sat Dec 26 18:13:26 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DDF63A1171 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 18:13:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.09 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.09 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_PASS=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_TEMPERROR=0.01] 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 7oVZhAbYYWvi for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 18:13:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pl1-x633.google.com (mail-pl1-x633.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::633]) (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 4BB743A1170 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 18:13:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pl1-x633.google.com with SMTP id y8so3960703plp.8 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 18:13:20 -0800 (PST) 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=kCTcVqNYOTtc4eAh0L8prV4g7OhN0dE6OzpWMfTwpAw=; b=X5npA+Y/Gd1l9gk91rAt/V7diO5Rdksa5OOX7xI0mzfqlYhe0sUT+fPJH2HNeFQCQy Dir6SxC9lyl/CFZH/VkPw1nWEhIEDBSs2jfY0wkFmICWuHv9xyqVmZgqfE8h2H3itwk1 ydHRLuQDELzxaHqUuNe4k6dBhuNM2ggdfFu69GKIiKtgX/9EDAbRMsYXtf5Rk0AULM9V VxjD90lgKHWie9t/SIdu08HJm7KCruQeS103C98jouTZfo+LI9YXEK+2suOX8W++9MAA bqetCoEl+aYUOymJUhIau07RuctVtVB2eQtRdW4NbBy1TNhAJqmAt2mWmLZKUXyn4Mu1 +HVg== 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=kCTcVqNYOTtc4eAh0L8prV4g7OhN0dE6OzpWMfTwpAw=; b=LKfDwaDTPKqOAayyt9cxDOh4btkV6rXEsxFYx1mG/zic0mAfMmKfZZSpQig/Ro2Zuc gGP/kVtuw6NmochPy9i2JnZTLTVk2NfZP8KHMwVu0y4ZPW5XoV0dDk/XK/YEz1QLeNcc dnA2ddGm9oSCLgqSF4ldVSp/DJCCTqnDt9nCYki5eL0k5FEjIlIZd2cbvINRkTVZbWjD Ic5V/U0ZLe5Rmpn4Z20vYIE+My7COdl7A7iuWkt1nq0WxuZSr6gdT8qpaX7VXAFooMwl JprQ9xeA0P0Xntrz4x1T61H1NQjS1vWL9qkBp2bAFx8uW2rJID02vqlhbLrgc3b9fASe G18A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Ri8uuefnAzBQogzxFNvjY4Ti9uf3tqJUGFJCTTXnFi90joxtf lN3HV26lh3hxZKTrijQr/d4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxllqEw7Ic33wlEHkD2v3nmdFwCfMl+ruzFByrFJK7Hhaq9+1YSqwhNJWwAJf0um0pAqGfMvQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:a781:: with SMTP id f1mr14835168pjq.111.1609035199586; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 18:13:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.131.28]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g17sm29317189pgg.78.2020.12.26.18.13.16 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 26 Dec 2020 18:13:18 -0800 (PST) To: Eric Rescorla Cc: Michael StJohns , rfced-future@iab.org, Carsten Bormann , "Joel M. Halpern" References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <441ca4b4-98d6-06d3-fab1-17455ff6d559@huitema.net> <0726262c-18ea-ae3e-c6a5-ad127dfd36c6@joelhalpern.com> <1A07F196-3DBA-4D63-95EB-F7537BAC73C4@tzi.org> <651D0579-7425-4D2D-9558-B323C9D3B101@tzi.org> <334630d4-a0f3-5442-f3c5-b71b4adac322@nthpermutation.com> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: <29ab67c6-3ec2-37cd-d909-0a82aa53c43b@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2020 15:13:12 +1300 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: [Rfced-future] "contractual interest" [was: WG Document review body] X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2020 02:13:25 -0000 On 27-Dec-20 12:08, Eric Rescorla wrote: >> Not exactly. Pushback is the wrong word here. Basically, the review >> body is evaluating documents for a) meets the requirements of the >> streams, b) consistent with the consensus strategy. I expect as you do >> that the RSE will author most of the documents and will have the editors >> pen - a form of voting if you will and reasonable to recuse themselves >> from the formal vote. At the times that the RSE does not have the pen, >> they have an interest - I'd say even a contractual interest - in >> ensuring that the documents are consistent with what's possible within >> their own work plan. Hence they get a vote. > > > It seems to me that the fact that they have a contractual interest actually is a strong reason why they should *not* get a vote. But that's exactly the mistake that the RSOC made, when they stopped treating the RSE like a colleague and started treating them like a hired hand. We saw where that got us. It's a sad fact that 99% of the population needs to be paid for their work, and the RSE is no exception. The stream managers are paid for *their* work too; they're not paid by the LLC, but they too might have a conflict of interest. We certainly need checks and balances and an implicit or explicit conflict of interest policy. I think that argues for a couple of members at large in the review body, in addition to the stream managers and the RSE. Brian From nobody Sat Dec 26 18:18:18 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99D713A1174 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 18:18:16 -0800 (PST) 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-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 tN9LW0hvWrSw for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 18:18:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pj1-x1035.google.com (mail-pj1-x1035.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1035]) (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 8350A3A1175 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 18:18:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pj1-x1035.google.com with SMTP id l23so4570243pjg.1 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 18:18:15 -0800 (PST) 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=K9afp/WAbLlm6Wy1JaWhIONUpLWmU1Shl1mN8tFud2U=; b=G8WsyRtC8H7QNTIo9PdBTp2LNPmQ9ZKvjtD22tuoPwF+NM8vVQFmvqLw39y0HsM17B XRCs2KHqV3e8GvrBQ83CSQMOJZe35tZORkAtLeIt9/zo/xh5Y9BI5sgToZGQTqocJcgo Swxv9UmCpFjZs9LA5KV/NwclUmXLLDhqu6J6cFOyGw+Bjx8MycZmsAen/63LzF/v5gn4 qADtoEdfJ+n/PCvHnbeiblJ97hBz7UShU+ZJDTlV5y602AJvloQP9LwXM/945/nl4mzV ek3GrxiGJXRgSIeH6lBxXe6+pp+GluLkaqJI+QsoHb8zjX65qIq4QhN2cDzkJxHmPPuQ S1xw== 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=K9afp/WAbLlm6Wy1JaWhIONUpLWmU1Shl1mN8tFud2U=; b=udaYs6hWSvS+DhgjUmk3EOl5C7oUP1GbRG3eS1R+EdovyIx8sbUrYGr7LW7XGE+TKB rLhVRLDnyotFwCSY8GBW+/WcGW5Kmou8fjW6VVIs+IeHabZ/UQ/2oBiWrYR9k5N7PLv7 88+1pYXLf+d0/JHhtIucP75AV3gCev0IcZn8hZUgoKJIfebIrXEQdDxzWG4YSHg5Po/A mTgUI0LixY0/I2+RJYfzKfpYEO2E/5gieYY5G1Q0gQWhI48jdMxnBaEbP1X1SyhCJ5YW 7qX8xYmoGKZQqwK/L9SzNNIgulZD1zOFMUU7zu5tfo5H5EkgkoiVi2pMHKfEZV1ULMHo fFjg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530EGWRAtS7BG55gBbRGHURKR6TFv/z3sISiZgUArWEKDpqWsplp ZezSq34pksa2VwD844sXSVyqpAWgMPUJnQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyiuSnGKaHyV6CmHAIukYHDcWKeKE0ZhpQrl1XEOz0IRz4JSFpla6iuoReegPWYd3+neMV8/g== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:298:: with SMTP id az24mr14906506pjb.128.1609035494698; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 18:18:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.131.28]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o129sm30591125pfg.66.2020.12.26.18.18.12 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 26 Dec 2020 18:18:13 -0800 (PST) To: Michael StJohns , rfced-future@iab.org References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <056684f2-ab2c-5b85-4dfd-bada78e1e528@joelhalpern.com> <07aa9478-ca0c-aed3-8a9a-312a78172a5f@joelhalpern.com> <2f29a27d-0231-0ad4-cd8a-24dcfe5666b3@nthpermutation.com> <8be85e80-e093-a483-4bfd-4831bb684ab8@nthpermutation.com> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: <34d1e6a3-6245-2aee-5299-c526a4f14120@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2020 15:18:08 +1300 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: <8be85e80-e093-a483-4bfd-4831bb684ab8@nthpermutation.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] quasi-WG discussion procedures X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2020 02:18:17 -0000 On 27-Dec-20 12:48, Michael StJohns wrote: > Slight edit in line >=20 > On 12/26/2020 4:15 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: >> On 12/26/2020 8:17 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: >>> Hi everyone! >>> >>> So=E2=80=A6 to be clear, I think what we are now saying is the follow= ing: >>> >>>> |All strategic body meetings are open to the public, all discussions= of issues *will* *initially* take place on open mailing lists, and anyon= e is welcome to comment / discuss. =C2=A0The=C2=A0|strategic body may dec= ide *by rough consensus* to use additional forms of communication that ar= e consistent with [RFC2418]. >> >> Instead: >> >> >> "All strategic bodies are open to the public.=C2=A0 All strategic issu= e discussions will take place on open mailing lists, and anyone is welcom= e to comment/discuss.=C2=A0 On a document by document basis, the strategi= c body may decide by rough consensus, and with the assent of the designat= ed editors, to use additional forms of communication consistent with [RFC= 2418] for the production of a given document.=C2=A0 Use of those forms of= communication does not replace the responsibility of the editors to brin= g major strategic issues with the document to the mailing list." >> >> > s/strategic bodies/strategic body meetings/ Yes. Although the main issue with Eliot's formulation is that "initially"= implies that later discussion might take place entirely without email, w= hich contradicts RFC2418. For me at least the main point is that all deci= sions are confirmed by email. Brian >=20 >=20 >> Github is pretty much the worst way to have a discussion such as we're= currently having and I expect that things like writing an SOW or even de= ciding what the charter might be needs to be kept on the mailing list.=C2= =A0 It may make sense for a given document for the editing of various con= tent, but not for the day to day operation of the group. >> >> Later, Mike >> >> >>> >>> >>> Please indicate your concerns with/edits to the above approach by the= 8th of January. >>> >>> Eliot >>> >>> >> >=20 >=20 From nobody Sat Dec 26 18:26:36 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15CEE3A117D for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 18:26:35 -0800 (PST) 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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-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 TbxOxnpV_eSC for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 18:26:33 -0800 (PST) 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 D19323A117C for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 18:26:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D3Pgs4djWz6GTjn; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 18:26:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1609035993; bh=lcRlKj4oqLjGN87FHQEo+NqwogK12OoYyJLn8bOsfcU=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=JLxAKR31rmbeCz/IUy5jN6QUFxVIkSuEGeOPq8Mp08BUyjCTbW7VuPybNQT7zEuAt /tJ/EV0Hck53txWxQqxEapdpYGhGwMiEDiMtPJirsxJ0Ic0uez4xaBzjtMmSP0ny14 va7Wfc8I8gwIKXZnn5UDj2NIobARhMjDGzFFi78g= X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (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 4D3Pgs15Z1z6GR6K; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 18:26:33 -0800 (PST) To: Brian E Carpenter , rfced-future@iab.org References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <056684f2-ab2c-5b85-4dfd-bada78e1e528@joelhalpern.com> <07aa9478-ca0c-aed3-8a9a-312a78172a5f@joelhalpern.com> <2f29a27d-0231-0ad4-cd8a-24dcfe5666b3@nthpermutation.com> <8be85e80-e093-a483-4bfd-4831bb684ab8@nthpermutation.com> <34d1e6a3-6245-2aee-5299-c526a4f14120@gmail.com> From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: <432096ed-a3a3-3a4c-837c-128753d388a4@joelhalpern.com> Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2020 21:26:32 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <34d1e6a3-6245-2aee-5299-c526a4f14120@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] quasi-WG discussion procedures X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2020 02:26:35 -0000 The text is about discussion. If you think we need to be explicit about all decisions (wherever and however reached) needing to be confirmed on the email list, then taht would be a separate line. Yours, Joel On 12/26/2020 9:18 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 27-Dec-20 12:48, Michael StJohns wrote: >> Slight edit in line >> >> On 12/26/2020 4:15 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: >>> On 12/26/2020 8:17 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: >>>> Hi everyone! >>>> >>>> So… to be clear, I think what we are now saying is the following: >>>> >>>>> |All strategic body meetings are open to the public, all discussions of issues *will* *initially* take place on open mailing lists, and anyone is welcome to comment / discuss.  The |strategic body may decide *by rough consensus* to use additional forms of communication that are consistent with [RFC2418]. >>> >>> Instead: >>> >>> >>> "All strategic bodies are open to the public.  All strategic issue discussions will take place on open mailing lists, and anyone is welcome to comment/discuss.  On a document by document basis, the strategic body may decide by rough consensus, and with the assent of the designated editors, to use additional forms of communication consistent with [RFC2418] for the production of a given document.  Use of those forms of communication does not replace the responsibility of the editors to bring major strategic issues with the document to the mailing list." >>> >>> >> s/strategic bodies/strategic body meetings/ > > Yes. Although the main issue with Eliot's formulation is that "initially" implies that later discussion might take place entirely without email, which contradicts RFC2418. For me at least the main point is that all decisions are confirmed by email. > > Brian > >> >> >>> Github is pretty much the worst way to have a discussion such as we're currently having and I expect that things like writing an SOW or even deciding what the charter might be needs to be kept on the mailing list.  It may make sense for a given document for the editing of various content, but not for the day to day operation of the group. >>> >>> Later, Mike >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Please indicate your concerns with/edits to the above approach by the 8th of January. >>>> >>>> Eliot >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > From nobody Sat Dec 26 20:48:41 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C44603A11D4 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 20:48:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, 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 p412I6fRtQrB for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 20:48:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B5F83A11D3 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 20:48:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.217.147] (p548dca87.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.202.135]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4D3Sqj5yMhzyT1; Sun, 27 Dec 2020 05:48:33 +0100 (CET) From: Carsten Bormann Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FDBEBE63-0DD8-4035-8AA8-D3509F3ED843" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.40.0.2.32\)) Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2020 05:48:33 +0100 In-Reply-To: <8beda877-711d-0a00-d89a-60fe1acefe5c@huitema.net> Cc: Eric Rescorla , "Joel M. Halpern" , rfced-future@iab.org, Michael StJohns To: Christian Huitema References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <441ca4b4-98d6-06d3-fab1-17455ff6d559@huitema.net> <0726262c-18ea-ae3e-c6a5-ad127dfd36c6@joelhalpern.com> <1A07F196-3DBA-4D63-95EB-F7537BAC73C4@tzi.org> <651D0579-7425-4D2D-9558-B323C9D3B101@tzi.org> <334630d4-a0f3-5442-f3c5-b71b4adac322@nthpermutation.com> <0509e69c-e82f-b115-eeb3-6ededb553a58@joelhalpern.com> <8beda877-711d-0a00-d89a-60fe1acefe5c@huitema.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.40.0.2.32) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] WG Document review body X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2020 04:48:40 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_FDBEBE63-0DD8-4035-8AA8-D3509F3ED843 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 On 27. Dec 2020, at 01:05, Christian Huitema = wrote: >=20 >=20 > In my mind, the review body would play pretty much the same role that = the IESG plays for WG.=20 This. (I would also be happy if the RSE does =E2=80=9Cget a vote=E2=80=9D = (which means power to DISCUSS in IESG terms) and just mostly recuses = themselves. Normally I would expect that this power is vested in Nomcom-appointed = positions, but maybe this is indeed a special case.) Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten --Apple-Mail=_FDBEBE63-0DD8-4035-8AA8-D3509F3ED843 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 On = 27. Dec 2020, at 01:05, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>= wrote:


In my mind, the review body would play pretty much the same = role that the IESG plays for WG. 

This.

(I would also be happy if the RSE does = =E2=80=9Cget a vote=E2=80=9D (which means power to DISCUSS in IESG = terms) and just mostly recuses themselves.
Normally = I would expect that this power is vested in Nomcom-appointed positions, = but maybe this is indeed a special case.)

Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten

= --Apple-Mail=_FDBEBE63-0DD8-4035-8AA8-D3509F3ED843-- From nobody Sat Dec 26 20:54:37 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE5AA3A09C6 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 20:54:35 -0800 (PST) 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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MtTWpJHOKI-o for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 20:54:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qt1-x833.google.com (mail-qt1-x833.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::833]) (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 6C02F3A09A8 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 20:54:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qt1-x833.google.com with SMTP id y15so5079429qtv.5 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 20:54:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=BGaZGpp6Cmiwnc3+iTdHk7uBz2Htoi9D38teJj2KRn4=; b=h4CtUQFkgHXIIg7E0VZvRGTmQndEkKWjgZ/1d/qDJWcNeqAC67ctLV7sj7RC/JSmLF gGBqoxulWpQ3jwQMV2rQpgBYG8DNLNvLmGgMx+mQHdjK0ODkJQ7eLMXatTlxALjhOPNw bSXkGB7CFibdgE9Pf0j3eeS96C5tWmw5nkcZIcbSXEAYYSwfjIlDyd8YPClUREwKLLEy LjifybVv1uNf1yK6tagIV2zm5FGHyZSdfzUzdI1StrXO0gGKeStA1LGJHr9uhH2Ym/ds JU/OAnMaUKwDxZwPBmmcWl8ZCDThvm9vI3QoBSl+jbM/kr6cI6pwI7++gUS/66TsmjYq qXmA== 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; bh=BGaZGpp6Cmiwnc3+iTdHk7uBz2Htoi9D38teJj2KRn4=; b=orC+/FYSJkWimZMAuKXQkGXmQMODgoMraf+5w+MsyV0MgrtfdrSQZokly/sGBF6ZGW WyorGZY/Zq1yXtMgBgLnNSDiHNBjKKYXZLiu2taL+ztyTyKNgAOsoladUxyqKBnzkrke 0gNq2uVNh8ny298e5TEVDoAYSTxezkzonU+InF+4OFaNlVrfJ39SH7yEA1PuhdZdKUg6 jIBUoZOZPQN0xv3hsngrU2PEztzTPXxVBoSgkd56nXBK82o+wR6TTrNzxLGLR4Fdk5Kn hJDxKSMAl19c2OBZY8c1GlEjQ+7S7cGu8oAYU+AImRAOL4GQfuHU7eIlwhYxBAfc/4Ib ocuQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5328cS9Nx7WrAqCGV3opSAZkz8pcd/xfIEHyTqc0My4Mv8Sgqvzr +JCBSdxGWkwCSIOaAib54g3MajqhOFCCA9Vh X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz2H3FsEpvM9aAs1SzdZJGzceLQVNSwqJBXYMSgywtEXDVBBi4QFmltky4Hx6CMfKg2ZGlRKA== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4d4d:: with SMTP id x13mr38840900qtv.360.1609044872580; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 20:54:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.23] (pool-108-28-189-254.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [108.28.189.254]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5sm20782894qtp.55.2020.12.26.20.54.31 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 26 Dec 2020 20:54:31 -0800 (PST) To: Carsten Bormann , Christian Huitema Cc: Eric Rescorla , "Joel M. Halpern" , rfced-future@iab.org References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <441ca4b4-98d6-06d3-fab1-17455ff6d559@huitema.net> <0726262c-18ea-ae3e-c6a5-ad127dfd36c6@joelhalpern.com> <1A07F196-3DBA-4D63-95EB-F7537BAC73C4@tzi.org> <651D0579-7425-4D2D-9558-B323C9D3B101@tzi.org> <334630d4-a0f3-5442-f3c5-b71b4adac322@nthpermutation.com> <0509e69c-e82f-b115-eeb3-6ededb553a58@joelhalpern.com> <8beda877-711d-0a00-d89a-60fe1acefe5c@huitema.net> From: Michael StJohns Message-ID: <252bd073-f0fa-2446-aeed-11e29bf11f18@nthpermutation.com> Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2020 23:54:30 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------DF7CC26920455AB5B44C22F5" Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] WG Document review body X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2020 04:54:36 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------DF7CC26920455AB5B44C22F5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 12/26/2020 11:48 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > On 27. Dec 2020, at 01:05, Christian Huitema > wrote: >> >> >> In my mind, the review body would play pretty much the same role that >> the IESG plays for WG. > > This. > > (I would also be happy if the RSE does “get a vote” (which means power > to DISCUSS in IESG terms) and just mostly recuses themselves. > Normally I would expect that this power is vested in Nomcom-appointed > positions, but maybe this is indeed a special case.) > > Grüße, Carsten > That would eliminate the ISE from voting (appointed by the IAB)... as well as the IRTF stream manager  (appointed by the IRTF chair who is appointed by the IAB)  AFAICT.   I think membership in the review body == vote. Period. Later, Mike --------------DF7CC26920455AB5B44C22F5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 12/26/2020 11:48 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On 27. Dec 2020, at 01:05, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net> wrote:


In my mind, the review body would play pretty much the same role that the IESG plays for WG. 

This.

(I would also be happy if the RSE does “get a vote” (which means power to DISCUSS in IESG terms) and just mostly recuses themselves.
Normally I would expect that this power is vested in Nomcom-appointed positions, but maybe this is indeed a special case.)

Grüße, Carsten

That would eliminate the ISE from voting (appointed by the IAB)... as well as the IRTF stream manager  (appointed by the IRTF chair who is appointed by the IAB)  AFAICT.   I think membership in the review body == vote. Period.

Later, Mike



--------------DF7CC26920455AB5B44C22F5-- From nobody Sun Dec 27 14:25:15 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 737D63A0CCC for ; Sun, 27 Dec 2020 14:25:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, 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, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 jtPdzl4qkcdy for ; Sun, 27 Dec 2020 14:25:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93A683A0CC7 for ; Sun, 27 Dec 2020 14:25:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1553; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1609107911; x=1610317511; h=from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:to; bh=+V+v8FYOL/um6/IqAC5+Bn/HdTXC25I1LkyaB6gXDHA=; b=m2ucAtBmeJRs2KQeBUtYkbT5UEb6a4wOZByQncGC0tpHwqsAfckX+MAO GhZQwNuV5pAKM6eM/wJpmKpbDOa+5ohd7M06/7gCLq+uqNPZUSIUT1aoi tqYDgMb/fwL7F/PV3jqAqaT+NWYnxl0EzUOo6PQG1/9EJZP+em1hbm4VQ o=; X-Files: signature.asc : 488 X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AIBAAYCelfjBbLJq1igliDeAEgEoRtiQSkYgQHAQEBC?= =?us-ascii?q?gMBAS8EAQGGPyY3Bg4CAwEBAQMCAwEBAQEFAQEBAgEGBBQBAQEBhkaGHYEzA?= =?us-ascii?q?oQYAYMGnwSOHHaBMopDEIE4gVOMF4IAgREnHIIpAYV1gks0giwEhQs4SAKcN?= =?us-ascii?q?JwogwAEgyOBN5Z6Ax+DF49vj0qwbmKDbgIEBgUCFoFsIoFZMxoIGxVlAYI/P?= =?us-ascii?q?RIZDY47jjBAA2cCBgEJAQEDCY0zAQE?= X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.78,453,1599523200"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="32170672" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 27 Dec 2020 22:25:07 +0000 Received: from [10.61.216.31] ([10.61.216.31]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 0BRMP6dc024514 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 27 Dec 2020 22:25:07 GMT From: Eliot Lear Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B3C50C77-E07B-4882-86F1-9EC467F2BA6C"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) Message-Id: Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2020 23:25:06 +0100 To: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.216.31, [10.61.216.31] X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: [Rfced-future] Point of clarification on terms X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2020 22:25:14 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_B3C50C77-E07B-4882-86F1-9EC467F2BA6C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 When we say, =E2=80=9Cstrategic body=E2=80=9D we have been thinking in = terms of either RSEB or WG. Since we are now talking about something of = a hybrid, in that context just to be clear: =E2=80=9CWG=E2=80=9D is open to all to participate and contribute. =E2=80=9CReview Body=E2=80=9D would be the body that reviews anything = that comes out of the WG. We can come up with niftier names as time goes on. More important is to = lay out the boundaries of authority for each of these, as well as = procedure, assuming this is the direction people would like to move. Eliot --Apple-Mail=_B3C50C77-E07B-4882-86F1-9EC467F2BA6C Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEmNC9kEYdsJKnsmEdh7ZrRtnSejMFAl/pCcIACgkQh7ZrRtnS ejN7gAgAmpK1hXcIq7dKOSiGPFP56KJv0McdB9JzvjP4C94z90hqoGqdmW6de0Yj qrisDjJXX33MN+Mdgw7bkRfJPtEEwqXJZwUP7He4/hqKacF5wr1rBRpldzZeKRny sTSNgmON0NVTAp6QsSei3trrrfZ5tyzxmOcaj17NjHePUmrxLKb/UF8k5dXaAt6J WCaPZ0F9E7zOjNZ6CEph2uKWX9hz4BGuMTuUBuPYoggSyL26BOnIxXMpAT0+vN/e 0C5PjJzHA2avJ6UMgmy9If83eI5gzG3c2VTk9+89mnct/A8w9NmpjF0/59EAcNWL LtCzGPd14eNJ2l3J1GnMUiCQ6fNVWg== =R+tv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_B3C50C77-E07B-4882-86F1-9EC467F2BA6C-- From nobody Mon Dec 28 04:08:22 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 827EF3A0913 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 04:08:20 -0800 (PST) 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_H3=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 (2048-bit key) header.d=lowentropy.net header.b=RdJfjdqw; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=So+xwGMf 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 c7weirCR1J3Y for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 04:08:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C58F3A090D for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 04:08:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CE9B7F2 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 07:08:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from imap10 ([10.202.2.60]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 28 Dec 2020 07:08:18 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lowentropy.net; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type; s=fm1; bh=nVfwusApggkMRowD1Q3hvslKco1By2r 9IG4hR+kOpXs=; b=RdJfjdqwntjRhOu+t3WQHuE9UmOPPD0Ex56Ut9+V7gb5oYs hQWNusjCe3lSEDmxeSK8FDNE+Qbr6PIu8IWBqTsFNYtQAU5Trr494eqVENyv+ut0 tv/Kxwu99x6WMiWDqgXy62y8DRpiQZDYzvMGCeXkIQ/IaLhho/NpcztIRPX3GXQJ T+iUWzxtv8D/MQDubHZ5uhcaeKJeYQzqjMDLY/62JdzNhRzb8w60sKVMK3p3z/O3 OcKgz8v4QPCN53lqOWgyPbf4oZ0Oxl0OFwIte+0IIsE129FxObwSFbU4iu9BTOWn XqDkdpyHXgQXVcri0IwbN6Hh8nhDbwTdfkAAHrw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=nVfwus ApggkMRowD1Q3hvslKco1By2r9IG4hR+kOpXs=; b=So+xwGMfSQdXAzfQk0MJ2l hP+KRvqFz/XlM5e4MnJ/r1cJRC9o1Fvp/up6q5aBBXdGaGdKIdSXuC/o5Kc4NIWg KCFGQAgP39ba6liArNfYuvzPqIfNnEkyOZrS13+nXjCXrO106PLv8i5bwFYxbCFn VA/TzqG6aiFocJ8W46rW7McyEeUf/MIeTLpDhuo4ebtmZwTMntgJ6tYN7XGncpVh eZCv3ZVhVDn94DCWecXwOGInNCYaHuXR+B7ZNE3QM1gjBVNcTIT75s0Xo4m+jmwU X5qqX5hw4YS0LdfcvcVIEawj/TOrXEG9RDdwfVZE7ylZlg0CqZzcx2ezAYON4NzQ == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrvdduledgfeekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsehttd ertderredtnecuhfhrohhmpedfofgrrhhtihhnucfvhhhomhhsohhnfdcuoehmtheslhho figvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeekteeuieektdekleefke evhfekffevvdevgfekgfeluefgvdejjeegffeigedtjeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigv pedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmtheslhhofigvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvg ht X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 81043200A0; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 07:08:17 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.1-61-gb52c239-fm-20201210.001-gb52c2396 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <252bd073-f0fa-2446-aeed-11e29bf11f18@nthpermutation.com> References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <441ca4b4-98d6-06d3-fab1-17455ff6d559@huitema.net> <0726262c-18ea-ae3e-c6a5-ad127dfd36c6@joelhalpern.com> <1A07F196-3DBA-4D63-95EB-F7537BAC73C4@tzi.org> <651D0579-7425-4D2D-9558-B323C9D3B101@tzi.org> <334630d4-a0f3-5442-f3c5-b71b4adac322@nthpermutation.com> <0509e69c-e82f-b115-eeb3-6ededb553a58@joelhalpern.com> <8beda877-711d-0a00-d89a-60fe1acefe5c@huitema.net> <252bd073-f0fa-2446-aeed-11e29bf11f18@nthpermutation.com> Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2020 23:07:57 +1100 From: "Martin Thomson" To: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Type: text/plain Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] WG Document review body X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2020 12:08:21 -0000 On Sun, Dec 27, 2020, at 15:54, Michael StJohns wrote: > That would eliminate the ISE from voting (appointed by the IAB)... as > well as the IRTF stream manager (appointed by the IRTF chair who is > appointed by the IAB) AFAICT. I think membership in the review body > == vote. Period. I have a different yardstick you might want to try. The stream managers, like the IESG, are there to determine if the consensus process was followed and that their stream is able to implement whatever was decided. The RS? has no direct stake in that unless they are also a stream manager. Either way, the reasons for objection are narrowly constrained and should be rare. Objections can't be "I don't like it" - that's for the WG process - they have to be "can't do that". We might say that should 2 out of 4 (or 5) stream managers object, then the proposal of the WG requires revision. If it requires a vote, a single dissenting stream might still be overridden. I would expect that to be the result of that dissent being addressed during the WG process though. This idea doesn't depend on having additional appointees to the review body; membership being limited to one person per stream appointed by the governing body for that stream. From nobody Mon Dec 28 04:44:01 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D00B03A0989 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 04:44:00 -0800 (PST) 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, 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 HCsI6GeMrTwf for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 04:43:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72E683A097E for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 04:43:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p548dca87.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.202.135]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4D4HKk3w9Kzyfq; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 13:43:54 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2020 13:43:54 +0100 Cc: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 630852234.0233769-d193a3cad7b99b14bec3075fc3d9ec94 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <8400FD27-FC5A-4973-9D19-65D380332660@tzi.org> References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <441ca4b4-98d6-06d3-fab1-17455ff6d559@huitema.net> <0726262c-18ea-ae3e-c6a5-ad127dfd36c6@joelhalpern.com> <1A07F196-3DBA-4D63-95EB-F7537BAC73C4@tzi.org> <651D0579-7425-4D2D-9558-B323C9D3B101@tzi.org> <334630d4-a0f3-5442-f3c5-b71b4adac322@nthpermutation.com> <0509e69c-e82f-b115-eeb3-6ededb553a58@joelhalpern.com> <8beda877-711d-0a00-d89a-60fe1acefe5c@huitema.net> <252bd073-f0fa-2446-aeed-11e29bf11f18@nthpermutation.com> To: Martin Thomson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] WG Document review body X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2020 12:44:01 -0000 On 2020-12-28, at 13:07, Martin Thomson wrote: >=20 > We might say that should 2 out of 4 (or 5) stream managers object, = then the proposal of the WG requires revision. If it requires a vote, a = single dissenting stream might still be overridden. I would expect that = to be the result of that dissent being addressed during the WG process = though. This is indeed close to the way that the IESG operates. I think we can import the whole DISCUSS/COMMENT/ABSTAIN/RECUSE=E2=80=A6 = model. One thought that supports Mike=E2=80=99s proposal (to give the RSE such = a voice) is that the position of the RSE would be formally recorded in = this process like the ones of the stream managers. And I do think now = that overruling serious objections (DISCUSS) by the RSE should require = consensus of the stream editors (i.e., no supporting DISCUSS). Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten From nobody Mon Dec 28 09:44:07 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 718043A0CC1 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 09:44:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 vSgnEgdvMU5L for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 09:44:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 818293A0CC0 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 09:44:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBC4E300BA0 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 12:44:01 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id NnipIFpIFOVr for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 12:44:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (pool-141-156-161-153.washdc.fios.verizon.net [141.156.161.153]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E98E2300A48; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 12:43:59 -0500 (EST) From: Russ Housley Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0B2708D4-334D-4DBB-97C3-302CE5374128" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.17\)) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2020 12:44:01 -0500 In-Reply-To: <252bd073-f0fa-2446-aeed-11e29bf11f18@nthpermutation.com> Cc: rfced-future@iab.org To: Mike StJohns References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <441ca4b4-98d6-06d3-fab1-17455ff6d559@huitema.net> <0726262c-18ea-ae3e-c6a5-ad127dfd36c6@joelhalpern.com> <1A07F196-3DBA-4D63-95EB-F7537BAC73C4@tzi.org> <651D0579-7425-4D2D-9558-B323C9D3B101@tzi.org> <334630d4-a0f3-5442-f3c5-b71b4adac322@nthpermutation.com> <0509e69c-e82f-b115-eeb3-6ededb553a58@joelhalpern.com> <8beda877-711d-0a00-d89a-60fe1acefe5c@huitema.net> <252bd073-f0fa-2446-aeed-11e29bf11f18@nthpermutation.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.17) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] WG Document review body X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2020 17:44:07 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_0B2708D4-334D-4DBB-97C3-302CE5374128 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Dec 26, 2020, at 11:54 PM, Michael StJohns = wrote: >=20 > On 12/26/2020 11:48 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: >> On 27. Dec 2020, at 01:05, Christian Huitema > wrote: >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> In my mind, the review body would play pretty much the same role = that the IESG plays for WG.=20 >>=20 >> This. >>=20 >> (I would also be happy if the RSE does =E2=80=9Cget a vote=E2=80=9D = (which means power to DISCUSS in IESG terms) and just mostly recuses = themselves. >> Normally I would expect that this power is vested in Nomcom-appointed = positions, but maybe this is indeed a special case.) >>=20 >> Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten >>=20 > That would eliminate the ISE from voting (appointed by the IAB)... as = well as the IRTF stream manager (appointed by the IRTF chair who is = appointed by the IAB) AFAICT. I think membership in the review body = =3D=3D vote. Period. >=20 >=20 I disagree. Stream managers are directly and indirectly accountable to = NomCom. The IRTF Chair is directly, and the other three are picked bu = the IAB, which is accountable to NomCom. The stream managers have the = best view of the needs of their stream, and that is why I think they = should serve as the approval group for the documents coming out out of = this effort. Russ --Apple-Mail=_0B2708D4-334D-4DBB-97C3-302CE5374128 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8

On Dec 26, 2020, at 11:54 PM, Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com> wrote:

=20 =20
On 12/26/2020 11:48 PM, Carsten = Bormann wrote:
On 27. Dec 2020, at 01:05, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net> wrote:
=


In my mind, the review body would play pretty much the same role that the IESG plays for = WG. 

This.

(I would also be happy if the RSE does =E2=80=9Cget = a vote=E2=80=9D (which means power to DISCUSS in IESG terms) and just mostly recuses themselves.
Normally I would expect that this power is vested = in Nomcom-appointed positions, but maybe this is indeed a special case.)

Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten

That would eliminate the ISE from voting = (appointed by the IAB)... as well as the IRTF stream manager  (appointed by the = IRTF chair who is appointed by the IAB)  AFAICT.   I = think membership in the review body =3D=3D vote. Period.


I disagree.  Stream = managers are directly and indirectly accountable to NomCom. The IRTF = Chair is directly, and the other three are picked bu the IAB, which is = accountable to NomCom.  The stream managers have the best view of = the needs of their stream, and that is why I think they should serve as = the approval group for the documents coming out out of this = effort.

Russ

= --Apple-Mail=_0B2708D4-334D-4DBB-97C3-302CE5374128-- From nobody Mon Dec 28 10:04:51 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DB383A0CD5 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 10:04:50 -0800 (PST) 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 OsiS1DWQxjoz for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 10:04:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F4C43A0CD3 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 10:04:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1ktwsu-000Cks-FO; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 13:04:44 -0500 Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2020 13:04:38 -0500 From: John C Klensin To: Carsten Bormann , Martin Thomson cc: rfced-future@iab.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <8400FD27-FC5A-4973-9D19-65D380332660@tzi.org> References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <441ca4b4-98d6-06d3-fab1-17455ff6d559@huitema.net> <0726262c-18ea-ae3e-c6a5-ad127dfd36c6@joelhalpern.com> <1A07F196-3DBA-4D63-95EB-F7537BAC73C4@tzi.org> <651D0579-7425-4D2D-9558-B323C9D3B101@tzi.org> <334630d4-a0f3-5442-f3c5-b71b4adac322@nthpermutation.com> <0509e69c-e82f-b115-eeb3-6ededb553a58@joelhalpern.com> <8beda877-711d-0a00-d89a-60fe1acefe5c@huitema.net> <252bd073-f0fa-2446-aeed-11e29bf11f18@nthpermutation.com> <8400FD27-FC5A-4973-9D19-65D380332660@tzi.org> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] WG Document review body X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2020 18:04:50 -0000 --On Monday, December 28, 2020 13:43 +0100 Carsten Bormann wrote: > On 2020-12-28, at 13:07, Martin Thomson > wrote: >>=20 >> We might say that should 2 out of 4 (or 5) stream managers >> object, then the proposal of the WG requires revision. If it >> requires a vote, a single dissenting stream might still be >> overridden. I would expect that to be the result of that >> dissent being addressed during the WG process though. >=20 > This is indeed close to the way that the IESG operates. > I think we can import the whole > DISCUSS/COMMENT/ABSTAIN/RECUSE=E2=80=A6 model. >=20 > One thought that supports Mike's proposal (to give the RSE > such a voice) is that the position of the RSE would be > formally recorded in this process like the ones of the stream > managers. And I do think now that overruling serious > objections (DISCUSS) by the RSE should require consensus of > the stream editors (i.e., no supporting DISCUSS). I guess I should finally speak up about this because I'm concerned about where it may be taking us. Apologies if this has been said already -- I'm finding it impossible to follow all of the correspondence of this effort and still be able to do anything else. I'm worried about the idea of this committee/ review body as it seems to be unfolding. Carrying the IESG model a bit further, my expectation is that every single AD is aware of what they don't know. One thing that means is that, if a specification shows up about which a particular AD, or whatever review teams or other advisors that AD is willing to trust, does not have a clue, I (and I hope we) expect that AD to abstain or vote "No Objection" rather than voting "DISCUSS -- I don't understand this and will not let to go through until I do" (whether the explanation there is explicit or not). Over the years, some ADs have not come up to those expectations but, generally, I think that has been managed reasonably well and, while it takes too long (and has allowed considerable damage in the interim) Nomcoms generally do a good job of not letting the behavior continue into an extra term. On this review body/committee, is publication-specific issues come up, I would expect most of the stream-appointed representatives to vote "no clue" most of the time. If they do, their presence may not be helpful except to identify things that would harm their particular streams (see below) but, otherwise, our expectations of major contributions from them should be very limited. If that body votes and the expectation is that things are going to be settled by voting, certainly the RSE needs to vote. If the question is "would this proposed change be harmful to the work of one or more of the streams?", then the stream managers should vote too. But I think that misses the point. If a single one of those stream manager representatives says "this will be harmful to the stream I represent" then that should stop the proposal until the problem is resolved or that person is convinced that is not the case. No second-guessing that position or outvoting someone on the theory that, e.g., the interests of the majority of other streams should prevail. If the RSE says "this would damage the integrity or utility of the series", then that, similarly, should be the end of it unless their minds can be changed or the proposal improved. If either the RSE or the stream representatives start blocking things out of personal pique or behave like arrogant and pigheaded jerks, then the community has a problem. That problem, however, isn't going to get resolved by our trying to work out find details of who votes and how many votes they have (and, yes, I agree with Brian and others that a few at-large members would be a good idea, if only to improve openness and accountability). That approach creates a bias for continuing whatever we have been doing unless there is clear consensus for change (and no showstopper objections), but maybe that is not a bad thing. And that leads me to another conclusion: focusing on having these people be Nomcom appointees or trying Nomcom appointments to authority or voting rights is probably the wrong idea. I think the stream representatives (deliberately avoiding "managers") should be appointed by the bodies responsible for the streams _and_ should serve strictly at the pleasure of those bodies. "Serving at pleasure" is the solution for someone who goes off the rails and becomes a problem for the review body, the body they are supposedly representing, and/or the Internet. Picking the wrong person and retaining them after that becomes obvious is something for which the entire appointing body can be held responsible. And the stream representative should probably not be the IETF Chair, the IAB Chair, or probably the IRTF Chair -- their Chairs are likely to be psychologically harder for those bodies to remove and this is not an area in which we need more concentration of power. And then there is the question of expertise... see next note. john From nobody Mon Dec 28 10:47:08 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 427263A0CF4; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 10:47:07 -0800 (PST) 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 1CcfzH-PGBxY; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 10:47:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74A083A0CF0; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 10:47:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1ktxXs-000D2S-5B; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 13:47:04 -0500 Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2020 13:46:57 -0500 From: John C Klensin To: Eliot Lear , rfced-future@iab.org Message-ID: <747AF8E6F186475B187D6A4A@PSB> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john@jck.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Point of clarification on terms X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2020 18:47:07 -0000 --On Sunday, December 27, 2020 23:25 +0100 Eliot Lear wrote: > > When we say, "strategic body" we have been thinking in > terms of either RSEB or WG. Since we are now talking about > something of a hybrid, in that context just to be clear: > > "WG" is open to all to participate and contribute. > "Review Body" would be the body that reviews anything that > comes out of the WG. > > We can come up with niftier names as time goes on. More > important is to lay out the boundaries of authority for each > of these, as well as procedure, assuming this is the direction > people would like to move. A colleague of ours, one who is probably too smart to be following this list, once suggested (approximately... don't remember the exact quote) that another body in the Internet administration and standards space was an experiment in how many bureaucrats, politicians, and lawyers it took at replace one part-time engineer. As we create, and then try to carefully define, more and more structure, presumably because we do not trust ourselves to appoint or hire the right individuals and hold them accountable (for their work rather than for not saluting every time some other body comes to a conclusion), I wonder if we are not heading down the same path with the RFC Editor function. john From nobody Mon Dec 28 14:21:13 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70D1E3A0E66 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 14:21:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vUlY8SzJX73L for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 14:21:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qv1-xf35.google.com (mail-qv1-xf35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f35]) (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 23F763A0E62 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 14:21:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qv1-xf35.google.com with SMTP id p5so5607110qvs.7 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 14:21:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=CyJE8+AyPW1j6fVbjV+GLAc4T+G4Jx10AooFBJ/V8hw=; b=QkcOxlchnnlSB3SLKobYc6VV87619VMYyHxy8JhY6YvgNpbp/N5dHTJSYyKLqjv/8/ mnEZ+aIM9xkEc+W/5hFYBMsgqyMyxVn8Dp3WPjkdTGBi6jdxpKy+IXwP/RjPV1DtRkD3 4VlfQG4HMlGlL4vKmhO8VATHZqTx0QPviUwlxGKwk5CBeqCC1BtJddIqO+cOv/Cd9WPr 7poMNHlYbWW5MYmno95Xqnut8o2nvRrTfCwIFyMUGecfrO1x6bquJHHiKFmtYh5+WUxN NOg7UPJkGkxMgAIR9yrnkw0mcFKWcsMk0e8xex8JrTzNOtUHkI1hLVg9x/BX/AC5LD2v ep3A== 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-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=CyJE8+AyPW1j6fVbjV+GLAc4T+G4Jx10AooFBJ/V8hw=; b=DMJR2H5ctaBl293KRJDR4AKI7TnTJ06I7pwkWGNKWO1sIMrPzzUZa/XQkqA8Lkv0Hs /6cvBuHQIuvB2WhKxeuGEyLtSaW9wvQwVwfjmjTtFSBWnn92kFWu0H4VOixSFHqkCxRE jI4txLgBtgVGzjYkVi9M5mEpY7owuNg193R/CdheLpr+VPf2DGZ2vgPiZSL9cSJTPFCI 8IemkUGfeQnwkXDgMwbEcZ0y6BdPV6KDTb7pS1TimkWiY4RDjK6Lqm41uEYy70qBZNJv wQnEtf4FWK5q90j6kT0OdAA0k8nuzJfidqZKBKEhrIv86TW3sPP+pjsEYCqEkzipXWW7 wzGg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532PX7NPKqBJpt1C56+L1fdJVG/A1zzgZvauO+V7MOLVvxctSuEc zcjvezK4Uo+EDuzMLfXb8jGUXaGz6TcLS4gx X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyNxeLnmNsEVnaWFa/1ffmZmcX3H9efDr7ovLB5RKV+6wTDU6ii8uge4cxxco+VNAbHFFEf9g== X-Received: by 2002:ad4:45a9:: with SMTP id y9mr49060006qvu.15.1609194068463; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 14:21:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.23] (pool-108-28-189-254.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [108.28.189.254]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x20sm24548606qkj.18.2020.12.28.14.21.07 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Dec 2020 14:21:07 -0800 (PST) To: Russ Housley Cc: rfced-future@iab.org References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <441ca4b4-98d6-06d3-fab1-17455ff6d559@huitema.net> <0726262c-18ea-ae3e-c6a5-ad127dfd36c6@joelhalpern.com> <1A07F196-3DBA-4D63-95EB-F7537BAC73C4@tzi.org> <651D0579-7425-4D2D-9558-B323C9D3B101@tzi.org> <334630d4-a0f3-5442-f3c5-b71b4adac322@nthpermutation.com> <0509e69c-e82f-b115-eeb3-6ededb553a58@joelhalpern.com> <8beda877-711d-0a00-d89a-60fe1acefe5c@huitema.net> <252bd073-f0fa-2446-aeed-11e29bf11f18@nthpermutation.com> From: Michael StJohns Message-ID: <47a0826a-dd88-6b0c-8ecb-151c82b7d2b8@nthpermutation.com> Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2020 17:21:05 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] WG Document review body X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2020 22:21:11 -0000 On 12/28/2020 12:44 PM, Russ Housley wrote: >>> >>> (I would also be happy if the RSE does “get a vote” (which means >>> power to DISCUSS in IESG terms) and just mostly recuses themselves. >>> Normally I would expect that this power is vested in >>> Nomcom-appointed positions, but maybe this is indeed a special case.) >>> >>> Grüße, Carsten >>> >> That would eliminate the ISE from voting (appointed by the IAB)... as >> well as the IRTF stream manager  (appointed by the IRTF chair who is >> appointed by the IAB)  AFAICT.   I think membership in the review >> body == vote. Period. >> >> > I disagree.  Stream managers are directly and indirectly accountable > to NomCom. The IRTF Chair is directly, and the other three are picked > bu the IAB, which is accountable to NomCom.  The stream managers have > the best view of the needs of their stream, and that is why I think > they should serve as the approval group for the documents coming out > out of this effort. > > Russ > I think you meant IESG chair instead of IRTF chair above? Sorry - no.  My worked example- the RSOC which is appointed by the IAB AFAICT has no accountability via the Nomcom which led us here in the first place. In any event, this isn't actually about accountability of the review members, but about applicability to their responsibilities.   E.g. The ISE is the stream manager of the Independent stream as a result of their appointment as ISE - he's not picked to be the stream manager per se, but under a broader set of requirements.   The IRTF chair chooses someone within the IRTF to act as stream manager and AFAICT, there is no restriction on who he chooses and it doesn't even have to be an RG chair (as there's no formal positions ala either the IAB or IESG).   The IAB and IESG each choose someone from within their rank as their respective stream managers.  If we get an ISOC member, they'll hopefully choose someone that can represent ISOC interests in the RFC archival series.   The membership in the body for stream managers is as a representative or liaison to represent their stream needs.  Unlike the RSOC for example, there is no directive authority implicit in the position, only approval authority for the editorial document stream. And I'd like to add a few longer lived community representatives to ensure continuity and some measure of community focus directly on the RFC series (unlike the IAB and IESG who are expected to split their focus in many ways and can find themselves replaced on the RSEB every year depending on composition of their sending organizations). Or to put it a slightly different way - the stream managers are important customers of the RFC series, but they are not the only customers.  We would be remiss if we excluded from the decision process broader views than just a laser focus on what's good for each stream. Later, Mike From nobody Tue Dec 29 08:33:58 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1772F3A145F for ; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 08:33:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 cHXBJTQfkvWO for ; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 08:33:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D49E3A10AD for ; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 08:33:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D98A1300B9E for ; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 11:33:52 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id OCuO2rCrYkwn for ; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 11:33:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (pool-141-156-161-153.washdc.fios.verizon.net [141.156.161.153]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A10E8300ADB; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 11:33:51 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.17\)) From: Russ Housley In-Reply-To: <47a0826a-dd88-6b0c-8ecb-151c82b7d2b8@nthpermutation.com> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2020 11:33:53 -0500 Cc: rfced-future@iab.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <51A64825-F72A-4776-8D33-31949D6B60F4@vigilsec.com> References: <50807633-0780-4F0F-BC99-3E2983C5377E@cisco.com> <441ca4b4-98d6-06d3-fab1-17455ff6d559@huitema.net> <0726262c-18ea-ae3e-c6a5-ad127dfd36c6@joelhalpern.com> <1A07F196-3DBA-4D63-95EB-F7537BAC73C4@tzi.org> <651D0579-7425-4D2D-9558-B323C9D3B101@tzi.org> <334630d4-a0f3-5442-f3c5-b71b4adac322@nthpermutation.com> <0509e69c-e82f-b115-eeb3-6ededb553a58@joelhalpern.com> <8beda877-711d-0a00-d89a-60fe1acefe5c@huitema.net> <252bd073-f0fa-2446-aeed-11e29bf11f18@nthpermutation.com> <47a0826a-dd88-6b0c-8ecb-151c82b7d2b8@nthpermutation.com> To: Mike StJohns X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.17) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] WG Document review body X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2020 16:33:57 -0000 Mike: > Sorry - no. My worked example- the RSOC which is appointed by the IAB = AFAICT has no accountability via the Nomcom which led us here in the = first place. Several things went wrong with RSOC, but the biggest one in my view was = that the IAB felt that they were not allowed to do real oversight = because of the way that Section 3.1 of RFC 8727 is written, especially = this paragraph: The RSOC will act with authority delegated from the IAB: in general, it will be the RSOC that will approve consensus policy and vision documents as developed by the RSE in collaboration with the community. While it is expected that the IAB will exercise due diligence in its supervision of the RSOC, the RSOC should be allowed the latitude to do its job without undue interference from the IAB. Therefore, it is expected that the IAB will accord RSOC reports and recommendations the benefit of the doubt. I do not think the original intent was "set the RSOC free". Rather, the = original intent was "don't micromanage". Also, the RSOC was too seperate from the stream managers. Russ