Re: [Gendispatch] AD review of draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational-01

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

Hi Joel,

> On Jan 21, 2020, at 11:34 AM, Joel Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Yes, I would expect (assume? …) the IAB would update the boilerplate once this is approved. 
>  
> Regarding the statement, the one that was pointed to is:
> https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/area-director-sponsoring-documents/ <https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/area-director-sponsoring-documents/> 

Thanks. I think my preference would be if the text were edited as follows:
In 2007 the IESG issued a statement saying that no document will be issued without first conducting an IETF Last Call [cite].
That way readers can find the statement if they are interested. I can work with the IESG on publishing a revised statement.

Thanks,
Alissa

> It could be argued that the IESG should update that once this is approved.  But I am happy to leave that to the IESG’s discretion.
>  
> Yours,
> Joel
>  
> From: Alissa Cooper <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 11:30 AM
> To: Joel Halpern <joel.halpern=[e-mail] <mailto:joel.halpern=[e-mail]>>
> Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] AD review of draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational-01
>  
> Hi Joel,
> 
> 
> On Jan 21, 2020, at 11:22 AM, Joel Halpern <joel.halpern=[e-mail] <mailto:joel.halpern=[e-mail]>> wrote:
>  
> Alissa, regarding 7841 I looked at that carefully.  The point of that RFC was explicitly to STOP updating RFCs with explicit boilerplate.  Rather, the document states that “Details of the exact textual and layout requirements are left to a web page maintained by the IAB…”
> Thus, this RFC does not need to provide the new boilerplate.  While there is some conceptual sense in which it updates 7841, it does not update A.2 as those sections are just to initially populate the web page.
>  
> Got it. So the expectation is that if this document is published, the IAB will change Section 2.2 at https://www.iab.org/documents/headers-boilerplate/ <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=3384e801-6f16e55d-3384a89a-0cc47ad93d46-4ab38a7127cf1fb1&q=1&e=7fb49d7b-3a59-46d7-a5c6-158bcb67a739&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iab.org%2Fdocuments%2Fheaders-boilerplate%2F> and let the community know?
> 
> 
>  
> With regard to the IESG statement, I was told explicitly that there was such a policy.  I included the text to give the IESG credit for having taken some steps in this regard.  If you want to remove it, or propose alternative text, I am fine with that.  I did not want to point to the statement in the RFC, since it would not be in effect once this is approved.
>  
> Could you send a link via email so I know which statement is being referenced?
>  
> Thanks,
> Alissa
>  
> 
> 
>  
> Yours,
> Joel
>  
> From: Alissa Cooper <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 10:19 AM
> To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Subject: AD review of draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational-01
>  
> I have reviewed this document in preparation for IETF last call. The document is almost ready for IETF LC but there are a couple of substantive issues I’d like to discuss and some nits to be resolved. This document is AD-sponsored but I’ve cc’ed the gendispatch list for transparency.
>  
> === Substantive comments ===
>  
> I tend to think this document needs to update RFC 7841 Section A.2.2, which is about document boilerplate, or otherwise indicate the new understanding that replaces this text in that section:
> 'The text that follows is stream dependent -- these are initial values
>    and may be updated by stream definition document updates and recorded
>    by the IAB on the web page.
>  
>    IETF Stream:  "This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
>       Task Force (IETF)."
>  
>       If there has been an IETF consensus call per IETF process, this
>       additional text should be added: "It represents the consensus of
>       the IETF community.  It has received public review and has been
>       approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering
>       Group (IESG)."  If there has not been such a consensus call, then
>       this simply reads: "It has been approved for publication by the
>       Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)."'
> = Section 4 =
>  
> (1) "The IESG has issued a statement saying that no document will be issued without first conducting an IETF Last Call.” Which statement is that? I foundhttps://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/last-call-guidance/ <https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/last-call-guidance/> but it doesn’t make the claim above.
>  
> (2) Related to my comment above about RFC 7841, I think for the purposes of IETF last call, the last paragraph of this section should be removed. If this draft does not end up getting published as an RFC, we can work out a way to get the boilerplate updated to be more clear about documents being published without consensus.
>  
> === Nits ===
>  
> = Abstract =
>  
> s/IEtF/IETF/
>  
> s/this updates/this document updates/
>  
> = Section 1 =
>  
> s/IETF procedures, as defined by [RFC2026 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026>]/IETF procedures as defined by [RFC2026 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026>]/
>  
>  
>  
> -- 
> Gendispatch mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch>