Thank you Mike! The issue at hand made me join. But I feel welcome thanks to your detailed email! I really appreciate your email and the community's efforts!
-- Ashish Shah On Fri, Jul 3, 2026, at 11:59 AM, Michael StJohns wrote: > Hi - Note that the only hat I'm wearing here is of a long time IETF > participant. > > If you've recently joined this list, perhaps solely to "vote" on > publication of a document, I wanted to give each of you a few pointers > for your edification. > > 1 - Getting started in the IETF - > https://www.ietf.org/participate/get-started/ > > 2 - On Consensus and Humming in the IETF - > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282 > > First - the IETF does not "vote" all claims or statements to the contrary. > > Working groups make decisions by rough consensus as judged by their > chairs. [2] above, while neither a standard or a BCP is IMO a > reasonable explanation of the rough consensus process. With respect > to the current discussion, I recommend reading both section 6 and > section 7 of the document. > > The IETF (collective intelligence) has long experience with > variations on the themes of dog piling, greek chorus's, and sock > puppets. We tend to be able to differentiate between an > individual's considered opinion and an unconsidered solicited > "vote". We also have tools (e.g. when did you actually sign up for > the mailing list) that provide some more objective hints in this > category. > > The leadership bodies (IESG, IAB) DO vote on the matters before > them. But they tend to be rather resistant to any comments but well > stated technical arguments. > > Second, I strongly recommend reading [1] and appropriate links from it. > > The IETF is NOT IEEE, not ISO, not OASIS, not W3C, not Global > Platform. Our procedures and the acceptable behavior around such > procedures have evolved over time, and were, at the beginning at > least, incorporated as push-back to having ISO internet standards > declared as replacing TCP/IP standards by fiat. (Ask an old timer > about Kobe, the original IAB, and the IETF reformation). > > Trying to engage with the IETF without understanding the limits of > your approach in the IETF context is unlikely to provide you the > results you may be looking for. Or substitute both "IETF" with any > other organization and I believe the statement remains mostly true. > > Lastly - if you've considered all of the above, and you still have a > strongly held view - informed by your own research into the problem - > express yourself! In last calls, a short 1-2 sentence explanation of > why you're supporting or opposed (or don't support but also don't > oppose) the action should be all that's needed even for a newcomer. > > Oh yes - welcome! TLS is important to the IETF and *YOUR* contribution > is part of our rough consensus. > > Mike > > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
