MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <175213478462.313554.13027073883749942997@dt-datatracker-557fbf6894-6vznl>
In-Reply-To: 
 <175213478462.313554.13027073883749942997@dt-datatracker-557fbf6894-6vznl>
From: Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2025 15:23:12 +0530
Message-ID: 
 <CAH6gdPzxaYA7+S4wCGihVDPbNzENzNJNEReYHMx22spGywL0kA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000046d050639902afc"
Message-ID-Hash: RVUT2X6B7JW2GDMMKGJNPZMENTYZNEMK
CC: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-raw-architecture@ietf.org,
 detnet-chairs@ietf.org, detnet@ietf.org, eve_schooler@acm.org,
 janos.farkas@ericsson.com
Precedence: list
Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BDetnet=5D_Re=3A_Roman_Danyliw=27s_Discuss_on_draft-ietf-raw-arc?=
 =?utf-8?q?hitecture-27=3A_=28with_DISCUSS_and_COMMENT=29?=
Archived-At: 
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/Kuwdl3l8_2vBH2kJpXMUwFtkfI4>

--000000000000046d050639902afc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Roman,

The progression of this document is a bit complicated as it has moved
across WGs.

There was a previous WGLC done jointly between RAW and DETNET that did
generate better involvement than the 2nd WGLC. There were also specific
reviews sought and updates done. Further, there were follow-on discussions
on terminologies over the period between the 1st and 2nd WGLC.

First WGLC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/GtG65KNl85_sf3bTQ27jwIWQuP8/

While it is correct that the involvement and responses were less than
desirable for the 2nd WGLC, I am not sure if that could be considered as
lack of WG consensus.

I'll let Janos and Lou provide more context/color (also perhaps update the
shepherd writeup) as they will have a better view of the history.

Thanks,
Ketan


On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 1:36=E2=80=AFPM Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <
noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

> Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-raw-architecture-27: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positio=
ns/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-raw-architecture/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> (This DISUSS feedback is for the DETNET WG Chairs and Responsible AD)
>
> Given that this document was moved from the closed RAW WG to DETNET, I
> explicitly checked for consensus to publish this document during WGLC.  I
> note
> with appreciation that this document was explicitly added as a milestone
> during
> the DETNET -04 re-chartering process in April 2025.
>
> I note that the shepherd report says:
> =3D=3D[ snip ]=3D=3D
> 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence
> of a
> few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreemen=
t?
>
> The normal WG process has been followed with nothing special worth
> mentioning.
> The work was started in the RAW WG and has been completed in the DetNet W=
G
> after the merge of the RAW WG to the DetNet WG. The document reflects WG
> consensus, which represents strong concurrence of a number of individuals=
.
>
> =3D=3D[ snip ]=3D=3D
>
> However, upon review, I cannot find evidence of support to publish this
> document in the WG discussion during the WGLC.
>
> The Datatracker history reports that the WGLC started in Oct-2024 and
> ended in
> Mar-2025.  Thank you to the WG chairs for using this state in the
> Datatracker.
>
> =3D=3D[ snip ]=3D=3D
> 2025-03-15/-24 closed of WGLC (Lou Berger)
> 2024-10-18/-21 start WGLC (Lou Berger)
> =3D=3D[ snip ]=3D=3D
>
> The WGLC call thread on the DETNET ML started on 18-October-2024 at
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/eYumAudcJqPFSARwmHRu8Mwfgi4/=
.
> While I can find Last Call directorate reviews and responses from the
> document
> authors and WG chairs to these reviews, no one from the WG appears to hav=
e
> responded to the WGLC supporting publication.
>
> Next, I assumed that the F2F plenary meeting discussions during the WGLC
> had
> established interest to publish this document.  However, the meeting
> minutes
> did not establish that either.  Caveat, I didn=E2=80=99t listen to the me=
eting
> recordings.
>
> =3D=3D[ snip ]=3D=3D
> The IETF 121 (Nov-2024) DETNET meeting (during the WGLC) has no tangible
> sense
> of consensus --
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-121-detnet-202411071300/
>
> The IETF 122 (Mar-2025) DETNET meeting (also during the WGLC) has no
> mention of
> this document --
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-122-detnet-202503170230/ =3D=3D[
> snip ]=3D=3D
>
> Perhaps my search skills missed key interim meetings or mailing list
> threads.
> Could some pointers please be provided that substantiate WG interest to
> publish.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you to Behcet Sarikaya for the GENART review
>
>
>
>

--000000000000046d050639902afc
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Hi Roman,<div><br></div><div>The progression of this docum=
ent is a bit complicated as it has moved across WGs.</div><div><br></div><d=
iv>There was a previous WGLC done jointly between RAW and DETNET that did g=
enerate better involvement than the 2nd WGLC. There were also specific revi=
ews sought and updates done. Further, there were follow-on discussions on t=
erminologies over the period between the 1st and 2nd WGLC.</div><div><br></=
div><div>First WGLC:=C2=A0<a href=3D"https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/=
detnet/GtG65KNl85_sf3bTQ27jwIWQuP8/">https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/=
detnet/GtG65KNl85_sf3bTQ27jwIWQuP8/</a></div><div><br></div><div>While it i=
s correct that the involvement and responses were less than desirable for t=
he 2nd WGLC, I am not sure if that could be considered as lack of WG consen=
sus.</div><div><br></div><div>I&#39;ll let Janos and Lou provide more conte=
xt/color (also perhaps update the shepherd writeup) as they will have a bet=
ter view of the history.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Ketan</=
div><div><br></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_containe=
r"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 1:36=E2=80=
=AFPM Roman Danyliw via Datatracker &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:noreply@ietf.org"=
>noreply@ietf.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote"=
 style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);p=
adding-left:1ex">Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position fo=
r<br>
draft-ietf-raw-architecture-27: Discuss<br>
<br>
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all<br>
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this<br>
introductory paragraph, however.)<br>
<br>
<br>
Please refer to <a href=3D"https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statement=
s/handling-ballot-positions/" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://=
www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/</a> <b=
r>
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.<br>
<br>
<br>
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:<br>
<a href=3D"https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-raw-architecture/" r=
el=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-=
ietf-raw-architecture/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
DISCUSS:<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
(This DISUSS feedback is for the DETNET WG Chairs and Responsible AD)<br>
<br>
Given that this document was moved from the closed RAW WG to DETNET, I<br>
explicitly checked for consensus to publish this document during WGLC.=C2=
=A0 I note<br>
with appreciation that this document was explicitly added as a milestone du=
ring<br>
the DETNET -04 re-chartering process in April 2025.<br>
<br>
I note that the shepherd report says:<br>
=3D=3D[ snip ]=3D=3D<br>
1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence o=
f a<br>
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?=
<br>
<br>
The normal WG process has been followed with nothing special worth mentioni=
ng.<br>
The work was started in the RAW WG and has been completed in the DetNet WG<=
br>
after the merge of the RAW WG to the DetNet WG. The document reflects WG<br=
>
consensus, which represents strong concurrence of a number of individuals.<=
br>
<br>
=3D=3D[ snip ]=3D=3D<br>
<br>
However, upon review, I cannot find evidence of support to publish this<br>
document in the WG discussion during the WGLC.<br>
<br>
The Datatracker history reports that the WGLC started in Oct-2024 and ended=
 in<br>
Mar-2025.=C2=A0 Thank you to the WG chairs for using this state in the Data=
tracker.<br>
<br>
=3D=3D[ snip ]=3D=3D<br>
2025-03-15/-24 closed of WGLC (Lou Berger)<br>
2024-10-18/-21 start WGLC (Lou Berger)<br>
=3D=3D[ snip ]=3D=3D<br>
<br>
The WGLC call thread on the DETNET ML started on 18-October-2024 at<br>
<a href=3D"https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/eYumAudcJqPFSARwmHR=
u8Mwfgi4/" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://mailarchive.ietf.or=
g/arch/msg/detnet/eYumAudcJqPFSARwmHRu8Mwfgi4/</a>.<br>
While I can find Last Call directorate reviews and responses from the docum=
ent<br>
authors and WG chairs to these reviews, no one from the WG appears to have<=
br>
responded to the WGLC supporting publication.<br>
<br>
Next, I assumed that the F2F plenary meeting discussions during the WGLC ha=
d<br>
established interest to publish this document.=C2=A0 However, the meeting m=
inutes<br>
did not establish that either.=C2=A0 Caveat, I didn=E2=80=99t listen to the=
 meeting<br>
recordings.<br>
<br>
=3D=3D[ snip ]=3D=3D<br>
The IETF 121 (Nov-2024) DETNET meeting (during the WGLC) has no tangible se=
nse<br>
of consensus --<br>
<a href=3D"https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-121-detnet-202411071300=
/" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/mi=
nutes-121-detnet-202411071300/</a><br>
<br>
The IETF 122 (Mar-2025) DETNET meeting (also during the WGLC) has no mentio=
n of<br>
this document --<br>
<a href=3D"https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-122-detnet-202503170230=
/" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/mi=
nutes-122-detnet-202503170230/</a> =3D=3D[ snip ]=3D=3D<br>
<br>
Perhaps my search skills missed key interim meetings or mailing list thread=
s. <br>
Could some pointers please be provided that substantiate WG interest to pub=
lish.<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
COMMENT:<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Thank you to Behcet Sarikaya for the GENART review<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>

--000000000000046d050639902afc--