Hi Ben,
At 10:22 AM 15-08-2020, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
When you say "it was never implemented", is that RFC 6729 itself, or
specifically the "written for this mailing list" part?
There was a message which did not make it to this mailing list. The
matter was discussed on this mailing list and the authors wrote the
RFC to capture the proposed solution as a specification (RFC). I
meant that the specification was never implemented by the IETF.
I'm not entirely sure what value eliding the word in question is supposed
to provide? I assume that it is "thick-skinned" but I am only guessing.
Your guess is correct. There are words which I prefer not to use. I
would not prevent you or anyone else from using them.
I also don't understand the reference to RFC 7154 being a rewrite to address
the "unpleasantness" part, as "unpleasant" does not appear in the diff from
RFC 3184 to RFC 7154
(https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=rfc7154&url1=rfc3184), nor does the
string "pleasant".
It was well-known that there was a "conduct" issue in the IETF. One
of the objectives of the rewrite was to provide an opportunity to
anyone who disagrees with the document to ask for changes to it. As
an example, if you (used in general terms) were of the opinion that
the guidelines should allow unpleasantness, you could have proposed
that. If that was the consensus, it would have been added into the document.
You won't find any of the two words as the thoughts are expressed
through the sentences and informational references in that RFC. The
IESG can determine, as part of an IESG review, whether your messages
constitute a breach of RFC 7154 if that the matter gets to that stage.
Could you also clarify what you mean by "the new role option was tested
previously"? The referened message indicates that there had been a
proposal for a new "facilitator" role, but I did not see or recall any
attempt to actually try out someone in that role. Perhaps you mean that it
has been discussed previously but not attempted due to the results of that
discussion?
Sorry, I must have chosen the wrong message. The message in 2016
announcing the experiment is at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/nQ-7XIKdLHvYlntNn7RB5gtnT3Q/
The experiment was concluded about a year after that; the results
were viewed as a failure.
The formatting suggests that these are intended to be "your idea here"
Yes.
proposals for what the IETF might do, but they mostly seem to be statements
relevant for general background as opposed to proposed actions; am I
missing something?
Some of the ideas could be formalized after discussion. Going
directly to actions [1] could cause "process" violations.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
1. Within the context of this exchange, I do not consider publishing
a document as an action.
