Re: [art] Call for Consensus: Re: On BCP 190

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 15:36 -0500 Adam Roach
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 8/20/19 1:33 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>> So, should ART have flagged this?  Absolutely.  But then I
>> think we should have figured out, much more quickly than we
>> have, that there are fundamental problems with BCP 190,
>> started addressing those problems a month or two ago, and
>> figured out how to Do the Right Thing and move on -- both to
>> clear the CT work to progress and to start cleaning up 7320.

> You are, of course, entitled to a differing opinion; but I
> find your characterization of the speed with which I've moved
> on this topic to be either misinformed or misleading, and I'm
> troubled by the implications of either case.

Adam, no personal criticism intended.   And I was looking at a
different timeframe, specifically...
 
> To be clear about the timeline: although the document was
> reviewed by the IESG in March, the first hint from its authors
> or any of the working group participants indicating that the
> provisions of BCP 190 might be considered a serious obstacle
> was on June 26th [1], and even that message was rather
> circumspect, indicating that the working group was positing
> "alternate means of satisfying BCP 190." It wasn't until the
> second week of July that it became completely clear that the
> WG believed that none of the alternate approaches offered by
> BCP 190 were acceptable to them.

And I was counting from March.  If the first hint of an issue
was in late June, that certainly isn't an ART problem although,
by your argument about cross-area reviews, one might have hoped
that some ARTarea reviewer would have caught it.  Note "hoped"
-- no blame either way.

> Given the, as you've pointed out, summer vacation schedule
> that many people have, I believe that taking on the order of
> one to two months to gather input on this topic and come to a
> conclusion that allows them to move forward is eminently
> reasonable (especially given the level of urgency implied by
> the three months they took to provide initial responses to any
> of their several IESG review comments).

That sounds completely reasonable.  But, IMO, it also eliminates
most of the arguments against simply taking the time now to
patch RFC 7320 as suggested in my options (3) or (4) and doing
the one month Last Call.  I was trying to figure out a way to
speed things up because of the time since March (again, not in
any way your fault) but, if you and/or  the WG believe that the
relevant date is sometime in June or July, then the right
answer, IMO, is to do this right.  

Again, I'm not blaming anyone, least of all you.  I'm just
trying to find a way to get this done that doesn't violate our
procedures for approving or modifying/updating standards track
documents.

best,
   john