Re: [hrpc] I-D Action: draft-irtf-hrpc-political-04.txt

[[e-mail]]

Hi,

I too am looking for RG guidance.

While I am not personally convinced of its readiness I believe my
co--chair does think it ready, so I am looking for RG evidence.  Eliot,
I really appreciate your reviews. Unfortunately I am having trouble
gauging the views of the rest of the RG. I have gotten 2 messages off
list telling me of issues, and ask that those that have a view on its
readiness, positive or not, speak up.

As for judging by academic quality, yes, I do look for some academic
quality.  Not perhaps full academic rigor but sufficient academic rigor,
; i.e no obvious defects in the argumentation, adequate references to
counter arguments &c. I am also looking for clarity, which academic
rigor does not necessary measure.

Also since this is no longer a personal doc but a RG doc, I am looking
for a positive evidence that the group finds it acceptable.  Yes, the LC
is meant to verify that, but I feel I need to have the impression that
is is ready and acceptable to most before I am willing to start a LC to
verify the degree of rough consensus. Since I can neither assume silence
means consent nor means dissent, in the absence of more comment, I keep
asking.  I would hate to call a LC, have few to none respond and take to
the IRSG review on scant evidence.  I will keep asking.

Some people have offered to review, so I live in hope we will get those
reviews soon.

Thanks again for your comments.

avri

On 17-Sep-19 01:47, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Hi Avri,
>
> I ask for guidance from the chair and from the RG as to what qualifies
> as ready for publication.  What are the criteria?  What are we aiming
> for?  Academic quality?
>
> My view?   There are some real problems in the document.  This is not
> an exhaustive list:
>
>   * The thesis statement conflicts with the introduction, and
>     conflates protocols and standards.
>   * As both protocols and standards are central to the document, you
>     would think that they would be defined early on, like in the
>     definitions section.
>   * The difference between protocols and standards is not made, nor is
>     equivalence.
>   * There is no statement of import in the form of what real
>     contribution the work is making and why that contribution matters.
>   * The general and the specific are conflated.  Are protocols and
>     standards at issue here or are we talking about IETF protocols and
>     standards?
>   * The lack of examples is really quite frustrating.
>
>
> There are a great many other problems with the draft, not the least of
> which is that the author makes unsupported claims, either by reference
> or proof, one example being the discussion in Section 5 about the WTO.
>
> Are these show stoppers?  Please before we continue, let’s understand
> our own standard for publication.
>
> Eliot
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc