Re: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response moving to next step

["Richard Hill" <[e-mail]>]

Please see below.

Thanks and best,
Richard

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <[e-mail]>
To: "Marc Blanchet" <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>ch>; "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <[e-mail]>rg>; "Leslie 
Daigle (TCE)" <[e-mail]>om>; "Jari Arrko" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2014 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response moving to next step


> On 28/11/2014 05:51, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>> Le 2014-11-27 à 03:57, Richard Hill <[e-mail]> a écrit :
>>> I note that section 3 of RFC 7282 states:
>>>
>>> "The chair of a working group who is about to find that there is only 
>>> rough
>>> consensus is going to have to decide that not only has the working group
>>> taken the objection seriously, but that it has fully examined the
>>> ramifications of not making a change to accommodate it, and that the 
>>> outcome
>>> does not constitute a failure to meet the technical requirements of the
>>> work. ... A valid justification needs to me [sic] made."
>>>
>>> Therefore, I would request that the co-chairs provide a justification 
>>> for
>>> the conclusion that rough consensus has been achieved.
>>
>> While the shepherd writeup is not to justify, the writeup that was 
>> recently submitted summarize it.
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response/shepherdwriteup/
>
> Speaking as a process pedant, I would like to point out that
> RFC 7282 is Informational, so that use of "needs" is not actually
> a normative requirement of the standards process.

Yes, the status of the RFC is Informational, and, as far as I can tell, that 
reflects its content, which is not normative.

However, I presume that the RFC does correctly describe best practices and 
so it does describe the process that should be followed.

>
> Also, the text Richard elided ends thus:
>
> "...the chair must use their judgement in these cases.  What can't happen
>   is that the chair bases their decision solely on hearing a large
>   number of voices simply saying, "The objection isn't valid."  That
>   would simply be to take a vote.  A valid justification needs to [be]
>   made."
>
> Now, that passive tense is a bit confusing, but to my eyes it refers
> to the fact that the chair(s) should make a judgement about validity 
> rather
> than counting votes.

That is also my understanding.

>Anyway, I believe that the paragraph in the writeup
> that starts "There was a broad suggestion..." does justify the chairs'
> judgement.

>From my point of view, that is a description of what happened, not a 
justification for the decision.

I will be sending separately my comments on the writeup, but, again, it does 
not appear to me to be a justification.

>
>   Brian
>
>
>