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

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

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.

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.

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).

/a

____
[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/aq9Ojwqw8cPtXsUsofJhE_YO4Q0