Re: [GROW] Adrian Farrel's Discuss on draft-ietf-grow-irr-routing-policy-considerations-05: (with DISCUSS)

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

To be clear, these comments arrived during IETF last call and were well
circulated.
My Discuss is that the comments were not addressed in the normal way of IETF
review comments. However, I offered to adopt the comments as my own and let you
discuss them with me if you prefer.

RFC 7282 provides some hints on addressing comments and, as Joel has noted,
addressing comments does not necessarily imply changing the document.

I am sure, however, that if none of the currently listed document authors has
the bandwidth to run through this process (which is perfectly fine, and reflects
the fact that the IETF is not the only activity for many of us), the WG chairs
will find it simple to appoint an additional editor to run through the final
piece of the process. So the statement (which I choose to not interpret as a
threat :-) that this document might never see the RFC Editor, is just nonsense.

Thanks,
Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: joel jaeggli [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 02 March 2015 15:41
> To: McPherson, Danny; Adrian Farrel
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-grow-
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Adrian Farrel's Discuss on draft-ietf-grow-irr-routing-policy-
> considerations-05: (with DISCUSS)
> 
> On 3/2/15 6:40 AM, McPherson, Danny wrote:
> >
> > These are some pretty significant changes that themselves could be an
> > internet-draft/document, methinks.  Perhaps those so interested in C.I.A
> > in their comments could contribute some text, this was meant to be more
> > operational.
> >
> > I hope Eric has the cycles to resolve these [non-trivial comments] and if
> > they did get resolved it¹d surely need to return to WG LC (IMO) ‹ and I¹d
> > presuppose someone would find an opportunity to request a review from
> > SIDR, although part of the intent was expressly to avoid beating that
> > horse.
> 
> so, my assumption is a that discussing them isn't going always require
> change, some of them probably will.
> 
> > I¹ll defer to Eric if he¹s going to be able to address these, but I can
> > pretty much guarantee it won¹t see the RFC editor until well after Dallas
> > (if ever, now).
> 
> If we can't resolve it under adrian, that's fine more or less becasue
> the reviewer becomes the new AD but I probably get to rerun the IESG
> evaluation, so for all our sakes I think that is expedient to clear the
> discuss under the current regime but I am flexible.
> 
> > Alas,
> >
> >
> > -danny
> >
> >
> > On 3/2/15, 1:51 AM, "joel jaeggli" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >> hello,
> >>
> >> would like to chase this one down and resolve it.
> >>
> >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/grow/current/msg03015.html
> >>
> >> but haven't seen to much activity.
> >>
> >> lets do this thing and maybe we can publish this one before the upcoming
> >> meeting.
> >>
> >> joel
> >>
> >> On 2/9/15 9:08 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> >>> I'm under no illusion that terry's dicussion will have changed by the
> >>> time he's installed.
> >>>
> >>> I would rather have it done sooner in any event.
> >>>
> >>> we did not get a change out prior ti the jan discussion and it stalled
> >>> after that sorry.
> >>>
> >>> On 2/9/15 1:06 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> Any progress on this?
> >>>>
> >>>> Just in case you were holding out the hope that my Discuss will expire
> >>>> when I leave the IESG, I have to point out that my Discuss was to make
> >>>> sure that the RTG Dir review by Terry Manderson gets attention. And
> >>>> Terry will show up on the IESG when I leave :-)
> >>>>
> >>>> Shame to see a document sitting when it is so close to being done.
> >>>>
> >>>> Adrian
> >>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: iesg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> >>>>> Sent: 18 December 2014 15:33
> >>>>> To: The IESG
> >>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> >>>>> [e-mail];
> >>>>> [e-mail]
> >>>>> Subject: Adrian Farrel's Discuss on
> >>>>> draft-ietf-grow-irr-routing-policy-
> >>>>> considerations-05: (with DISCUSS)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Adrian Farrel has entered the following ballot position for
> >>>>> draft-ietf-grow-irr-routing-policy-considerations-05: 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
> >>>>> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> >>>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-irr-routing-policy-cons
> >>>>> iderations/
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> DISCUSS:
> >>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'd like to see some discussion of the points raised by Terry
> >>>>> Manderson
> >>>>> in his Routing Directorate review during the IETF last call period
> >>>>> (circulated on the Grow list at
> >>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/grow/current/msg03015.html).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> By preference this discussion should be between the authors, WG, and
> >>>>> reviewer. But I'd be happy to step in and own the discussions if that
> >>>>> will help.