Re: [Gen-art] [regext] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-11

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Tue, 15 October 2019 18:27 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1202E120046; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 11:27:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xiyFVUIQijGq; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 11:27:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAE86120020; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 11:27:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46t3ms4fSszKmlB; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 11:27:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1571164029; bh=HJCMrMEnzzO1PUS/zDkb26qjhlKyvoATnfswujL77qw=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=lzLrAobv6DJkk0kYJQTarbb2xmqGZ+NZ+XWqXz06nC36aLGTZqemWYJpr/2FhSHmF T914Msf9U3htDqNvNcNXobHoohJHKyDbRFQnAVBEk4Mljf988990dDWCuTtPSl331A Tj+S16lGhoC7q+lM/h66soxotn6c1rBAP7oVBwG4=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at maila2.tigertech.net
Received: from [172.20.7.244] (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 46t3mr0MqXzL6s4; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 11:27:07 -0700 (PDT)
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Jiankang Yao <yaojk@cnnic.cn>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration.all" <draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration.all@ietf.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, regext <regext@ietf.org>
References: <157074817849.20459.11318968277639852496@ietfa.amsl.com> <754e85cd.1470.16dce6a353a.Coremail.yaojk@cnnic.cn> <cffa265b-5df3-fdea-f57a-7af30880a154@joelhalpern.com> <5D394E0244700A5D092F1181@PSB> <c32157cf-3b18-fd01-9f0d-29bd6f4d4645@joelhalpern.com> <CALaySJLpf63gG811=az6oEfSV4hu20KDJn_rSXJ=gZQQ+OKsZw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <e98f8b98-c6e2-a290-57d4-79e60dde49b0@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 14:27:06 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJLpf63gG811=az6oEfSV4hu20KDJn_rSXJ=gZQQ+OKsZw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/NQsEBAZTh7CET0pST7XCLQtxXWo>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [regext] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-11
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 18:27:11 -0000

Barry, I have a real problem with us producing a document with WG rough 
consensus, IESG approval, but not IETF rough consensus.

People have been complaining about various markings causing confusion 
about the status and meaning of documents.  This seems a MUCH worse case 
than anything I have seen.

The fact that the tooling allows it, and even presumably that IESG 
processes allow it, does not make it a good idea.

If I think about it too much, I end up unable to parse the notion of a 
document published on the IETF stream without IETF rough consensus.

Yours,
Joel

On 10/15/2019 2:19 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> If we do not have agreement on what the meaning is for the relevant
>> terms, then either
>> 1) The document should not be an IETF consensus document (which even
>> Informational publication is)
> 
> Just a point on this: it's not true.
> 
> We have a "consensus" flag in the datatracker, which triggers a
> boilerplate change.  It's always set to "yes" for Standards Track or
> BCP, but for Informational and Experimental it can be set either way.
> If it's set to "no", the boilerplate says that the document does not
> have IETF consensus.  It's possible that when we're done with this
> document it could settle into that.
> 
> It's also possible that we might convince the regext working group to
> stop processing this document and suggest to the authors to go to the
> ISE.  I don't think we're there yet, and at the moment the working
> group has consensus to publish it as a working group product
> 
> Barry
>