From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28AC73CB37 for ; Wed, 22 May 2024 09:10:58 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1716383453; x=1716988253; i=moeller0@gmx.de; bh=jSzwwrv1Gs6kPgxT7KbZkah3+QalUY13JnlUpIr/wcA=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From: In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id: References:To:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from: message-id:mime-version:reply-to:subject:to; b=S6rEK49eDLrYPMJjiDl9lQfPbIl8PFhP8aZrIslhEOP5W7vUH7y+ew3NuU6TrYGk cbCMQWATIZsxA9K/qUjZr1dczYNvhwHHBP1XKUFVNHTYe4TbvJVkcGE9VOkn3Lljc /eWIFlvKvjSFEeMDNJW51kHKAdZoE95oTkjVqhXA7DnrxRNcYC/77V2vTddDUkPWq aJdw2bkfpY5d0ETJ+lr58z/jYlBJLGzY8dF8TCuBNQsKaPSMdXPA/wcBathYXF+FJ Gf/ritADMljmGgIbXDIP/e5W1udxuCz6zDQzeiDVPynHMksRGHtX2sK+yoaay5ZJ3 JzPOTzvR1o/QEpuN9g== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from smtpclient.apple ([134.76.241.253]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx005 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1N0XCw-1sUTPt2m0a-00wW3Z; Wed, 22 May 2024 15:10:53 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.600.62\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: <421E9E11-618B-4D6E-A905-D7C5F9457A3D@comcast.com> Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 15:10:42 +0200 Cc: bloat Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <0F222476-EB44-45E9-93C5-2E595AE08C09@gmx.de> <421E9E11-618B-4D6E-A905-D7C5F9457A3D@comcast.com> To: "Livingood, Jason" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.600.62) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:oPN+8QVZiBx5M3WePPFe5PMei2eapvKett0YmUqhI8l5KVti2c0 lrL1ayYgYB4/d8Vk7Zjrw8/P4+VUAgJJRJ7QtnRTqHMBpBiflK0tNzWE/IOsMrDQdn80WeP mrxNIM+mzYvRArybEGUj6wJhkJKPzSf7NeJlFLb4g/Ft8Zqg3ztnVJYWkVa55s6K0i4Xz9A o4R2KMe38pIJFX7mWs6Ow== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:vncqsg4CE74=;/R5AsyCyXYFaFQavBKQt4xaTlJH fnTCePMnGfHh1fkRt+YYRvotWbVx+BIC57xOMuApIAR7ucPM6HW29eacwZ8XkC+zYheL1NZoL ojf3zEt3t239pWafb0xTWb8jZTXOSVih5a0FRJlHX3BQhEHrKHi8MIV1goAgbjAxxThyH4oOE 5HJAXNJzQ/cstA2QteerXelxG3onykHOCpS+U4/Bncgq+iAxw1Y4+/6D/P1YGqYH87aln44DG 6wrZbe4ZPAsl2pwIzCyjcaSowQii6Pze/a3KT41+t4OpovJ0fBMPGTlBTEH2dbWnLm3/+IJbh 6PRLg0kGpxqvmmpee4fPY97wZ3OJvtsikVQDrIacxtsHuayZ4zm7b2jbULZof56q5jRjZ06rW XW1DVnj8gMK/puqFmpnIX/Gmjb0LFGQvwCZAOeUAJ8zSxdCcFgyknDzB1h8uslG2aw6gbhReK SvU3o1F3I6Q5zyy2oQx4xxDczg5X0L8SUfe18A0JJ3ONjJgqhJQN5III6oGbTTNXGoapJMpCG Narq357uCZ6ebfDJc4mjOnDXQxmrQr8eIwH5fw6c3SKBkbHBs47XDOKcp7HbTfPJCzLew6kfd Qo+/jNWG6ZH7rafMkyOJw75QKZxBr3deTmPk1+58ymfZo+uYRfX+Bv9FEKdKTyK5VT3WU5S2i j3njsvw+l2abrMtqKYEeS5iVrSg/2SJSCKRBl0Ip8s0wjxyPf7ICcAlbaSgZsezbO+P2/aWbl dJYRuAoixKuc7Ta50j/WHw9WVBZxOWqPwhkBLQnA1ESuCdIJuhOI2Rt6M4/dg0e+faw1CKq7C Ufr2anl7lF6bmgGa4FKFRv41L0KHmkwK175CQ82XTFgKs= Subject: Re: [Bloat] "Very interesting L4S presentation from Nokia Bell Labs on tap for RIPE 88 in Krakow this week! " X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 13:10:59 -0000 Hi Jason, > On 22. May 2024, at 14:48, Livingood, Jason = wrote: >=20 > > in the IETF the gap between the 'no politics' motto There have = always been politics at the IETF and in every other SDO, open source = project, etc. =E2=80=93 it is human nature IMO. [SM] I agree, but most other organisations openly accept that, it is = only the IETF that claims to abhor politics. The IETF however publishes = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282 arguing against exactly = the kind of horse-trading happening out in the open. The solution is = IMHO not to try to enforce rfc7282 but to accept that politics is = unavoidale and implement processes that takr that into account. As is = the IETF rules allow chairs and ADs tremendous leeway without recourse = or checks and balances. BUT, I do admit that even with my limited experience with the IETF I = have also seen WGs were the IETF process works really well, civil and = productive, so not all is bad, but IMHO TSVWG demonstrates how easily = that can derail or be derailed on purpose. Like when for a humming event = (cough, ECT(1) input or output, cough) dozens of members appear that = seem to never before or after have given any attributable input on a = draft... > > And the fact that WG members see no harm in having private only = strategy discussions with chairs and ADs. > In my personal experience at the IETF, when you are lead author or = editor of a working group document it is routine to strategize with WG = chairs and even ADs on how to keep the document moving forward, how to = resolve conflict and achieve consensus, and how to be well-prepared for = meetings. That IMO is a sign of WG chairs and ADs doing their job of = developing standards on a timely basis. [SM] Chairs and ADs function as arbiters in the process (whether they = like it or not) and I like my arbiters neutral and unbiased. What would = be the harm to have the discussion how to keep a document moving forward = open on the mailing list? Doing it in secret is IMHO not a good optic = (even if, what I assume and hope nothing untowardly happens). My understanding is that "timely basis" is a far too important factor in = recent years, I prefer no RFC over sup-standard RFCs.=20 Regards Sebastian > JL