[GROW] IESG requested changes on draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Thu, 13 June 2019 14:56 UTC

Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
X-Original-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D9DA120338 for <grow@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 07:56:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 p9pyhYD77CzB for <grow@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 07:56:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x836.google.com (mail-qt1-x836.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::836]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6710112032C for <grow@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 07:56:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x836.google.com with SMTP id x47so22843799qtk.11 for <grow@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 07:56:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=NXxLpOWaH4wNfXKYF0s7aiTcmGsW4SLjrIlbH/4809k=; b=rBj2DOk1c+4hmz4ttuIQ0JxzL56bUFRcKo0/VK5vmZHki3t3RXhOPb6zBy7c2lYZbY RBzv8zuEir/Y3sG71MeJLc79QaySAfVUwpaXw3PRAw+Zb8kOIDxOkXakXWOCF1QDfQTs C7F6kr6xlwsfuC7rJxyu0CZaIp70Ea5bDNP+dUuX+FHHliJNXRBpNHrmBkRVbJAvec9u XsE8vVl6ERADr98L7/teLwTIg6QUNdJCrjEFwKjYm2mYKDWNIGTcrD24TvYL1X8Au/YR hLlhxdn5Y0eaILpBcNCmGZreNWErKzblHvdXn0gk22WckVqKr1+JTk4w5drvOBlAiUWv k4Wg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=NXxLpOWaH4wNfXKYF0s7aiTcmGsW4SLjrIlbH/4809k=; b=FlNze9g/3jcDTdmg4MGr1bZDb8Sfg80uaR7DTgivHZfOAaF4q+1gaXBQZCuiMx+9ms ic+YWWTaNi5DjKtt575Ly6MWuGEGA9eS5c9dlOCaA9kvOrTdY8hWvtRshCdOgKQ+sFmq dow+HB5lsqlQA4yAqdorExKIJ0/n51HXwIW9MbE7d0gAcanq+13F3f2YxeYsgPkLWwb7 ZY9LO6UgWs5drp11ID20CwImtgx4JafEWSxA5oqqnQn/121QthvTLNmcLTU/1MaULeGi Pg5sLHvWmrVUp5BvF8OIOKq8aBz+GRO/aLdAjkpo3BuQBmZxwqEb4ajP4VJUkYh+EOCm e1xg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVDw9dVSnO5ni2OUKmNiUPcY1QaO9tQsgYMmdDuxAmidDGK/S4s 7j+vtAnbIbdBkxqFRQZnSkteGXYFio/NtXuR+H4jB9ANt7twvA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyr6w5yDhNEGAn/HGC+yDsuE47rIK7MBXex4RG5tOUavA/1Mb9w3EHFT48jRcuYj6h282UNH35iqJ+Y1Tlt6kA=
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:3811:: with SMTP id q17mr46871819qtb.315.1560437767046; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 07:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 10:55:30 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHw9_iJnVf=yiQLWgnzdWTXrm6A6jWDSCsrQr9pfAwWuMJhOww@mail.gmail.com>
To: "grow@ietf.org grow@ietf.org" <grow@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/grow/ODes8a8s6zfDoVt198dby0ndJjM>
Subject: [GROW] IESG requested changes on draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior
X-BeenThere: grow@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Grow Working Group Mailing List <grow.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/grow>, <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/grow/>
List-Post: <mailto:grow@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow>, <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 14:56:10 -0000

Hi there all,

The IESG felt that (esp because this is listed as Standards Track)
that we should replace:
"Vendors SHOULD clearly document the behavior of "set" directive in
their implementations."
with:
"Vendors MUST clearly document the behavior of "set" directive in
their implementations."
(s/SHOULD/MUST/).

The document had sufficient support to be approved as is, but I think
that this is a useful improvement, and so agreed that we would make
that change (and the document is approved). I was initially
uncomfortable with the IETF telling vendors what they "MUST" do, but
then realized that we implicitly do this all throughout the IETF
series. Please let me know by  2019-06-19 if you *strongly* object to
this change.

Thank you all,
W

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf