Re: [Iasa20] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7776bis-02: (with DISCUSS)

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Wed, 04 September 2019 17:38 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EA67120B32; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 10:38:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 Rka9_tAWR6hw; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 10:38:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-f46.google.com (mail-io1-f46.google.com [209.85.166.46]) (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 0A3CA120B07; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 10:38:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-f46.google.com with SMTP id r4so30817117iop.4; Wed, 04 Sep 2019 10:38:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=7RPxNmhbuiwED6dMVFEmumzWihCauLfO7m02eIA1UqU=; b=T5sR/K05/YVtDP+jI/usp5dN1Tq4+i0mhdlbeF3NYOaI7Ytk0drs2MBrc0pE3IRtR4 VYlFATaulOwnOweuUb2CDTI0MpFAPiiEVhVamfSy8hP0Gz7BZAO1qZ7rFQnDCFOqXE/T Ui2Q22z9Gipy+S7OMnC48QFiNgWRkIlVKRYAM35vqkx+YPw0DdRHesuW6Bjsq5aEd4ew N+m/rhsEG9ntvZJbkaj5TZY85ckq7jyL1l/8Xru8f5HVlLs+LSEKzLFbXBCAW1aguyr6 woVxSmK2zKlalR7Ee0nUB1Ki97KzcVz92gddpSbVjBA5eRpwMNX1Q3qljSX2UirqEiQk +bfw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVCX8hBKlbAUkOp1mXJKRSDPxhJbtyfXF0T8MkUB+RT+c4XsYEU Snsm7UofGSq86NtPN4mEJ9rKG+UKxfWsafJY+Bg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyh/e18fZ+2BG+HnBo+0djiTtyVsPrSlm+V8a/uqqIPmWBj1aW+NUnnAVVnp5TgfjEQyd5AIrt3kAUCisd/sLc=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:c546:: with SMTP id g6mr29136748jaj.59.1567618697704; Wed, 04 Sep 2019 10:38:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <156760606264.22791.12804140363041746046.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <027b01d5632b$a6dc59e0$f4950da0$@olddog.co.uk> <3EE9F221-21A9-46CC-88FF-7879EB6FB619@episteme.net>
In-Reply-To: <3EE9F221-21A9-46CC-88FF-7879EB6FB619@episteme.net>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 13:38:06 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJLNmxpS9+m-Zg15Z67s=7sRLNsL=muJcVry2Aymv6RZyQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>
Cc: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, IASA 2 WG <iasa20@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7776bis@ietf.org, iasa2-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Jon Peterson <jon.peterson@team.neustar>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/FGkJTjZtIyvjhv1rfJv720ke8sk>
Subject: Re: [Iasa20] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7776bis-02: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: iasa20@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: =?iso-8859-1?q?Discussions_relating_to_reorganising_the_IETF_administrative_structures_in_the_so_called_=93IASA_2=2E0=94_project=2E?= <iasa20.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iasa20>, <mailto:iasa20-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/iasa20/>
List-Post: <mailto:iasa20@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iasa20-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20>, <mailto:iasa20-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 17:38:26 -0000

Pete, I have no issue with your conclusion, and I don't think we
should block this document... but there's one thing you say:

> your comment is a strictly on
> the editorial choice and readability of the document, which is quite
> explicitly a non-criteria for a DISCUSS.

Where in the DISCUSS non-criteria
<https://www.ietf.org/blog/discuss-criteria-iesg-review/> does it say
that *readability* of the document is out of bounds?  I certainly hope
that's not true.  On the other hand, the first DISCUSS criterion
refers to "clarity issues" and the second that "the description is
unclear in such a way that the reader cannot understand it without
ambiguity."

As I noted in my (non-DISCUSS) ballot, I think the attempt to change
the metadata in this way is hard to follow, and is therefore a poor
choice, and I suspect that's where Magnus is as well.

I don't care about this further for this document, as I hope Magnus
will clear his DISCUSS after this discussion and we'll go forward.
But I would hate to leave us with the idea that we can't DISCUSS a
document because of serious readability issues.

Barry

On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 1:23 PM Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>; wrote:
>
> Magnus,
>
> Yes, in fact the idea of doing a new obsoletes-7776 version was the
> first suggestion, which was subsequently waived off by the WG and the
> responsible AD. But as Adrian points out, your comment is a strictly on
> the editorial choice and readability of the document, which is quite
> explicitly a non-criteria for a DISCUSS. That said, a similar comment to
> yours was made in the GenART review during Last Call on the main IETF
> list, and there have been several ADs who have also so commented, so
> perhaps you are claiming that there was no consensus and therefore this
> should be DISCUSSed. Your ballot does not make clear who needs to
> address this problem: Is it the authors (in which case we need more
> guidance) or is it the responsible AD (in which case we will wait for
> the outcome)?
>
> pr
>
> On 4 Sep 2019, at 9:18, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>
> > Hi Magnus,
> >
> > Not sure how the authors can address your Discuss.
> >
> > We were tasked by the WG to produce this document in this form and
> > specifically to not open the existing document even for restrained
> > edits. I think this arose because the WG interpreted its charter very
> > strictly and did not want to risk any other change sneaking in.
> >
> > It would, of course, be basically simply editorial to revise 7776 and,
> > since that was an AD sponsored piece of work, we could do that instead
> > or as well.
> >
> > I'm sure the editors remain at the service of the community, but it
> > would be nice to not have to do the work twice.
> >
> > Best,
> > Adrian
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>;
> > Sent: 04 September 2019 15:08
> > To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>;
> > Cc: draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7776bis@ietf.org; Jon Peterson
> > <jon.peterson@team.neustar>;; iasa2-chairs@ietf.org;
> > jon.peterson@team.neustar; iasa20@ietf.org
> > Subject: Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on
> > draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7776bis-02: (with DISCUSS)
> >
> > Magnus Westerlund has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7776bis-02: 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
> > https://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:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7776bis/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > DISCUSS:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > I don't understand why not a replacement for RFC7776 was produced
> > instead of
> > this soup that is not readable. Publishing this in this form is
> > providing very
> > mixed messages to the community where we (IESG) apparently are aiming
> > for
> > readability and ease of comparing older and newer documents, but can't
> > be
> > bothered to ensure that is produced when it comes to the process
> > documents.
> > Also RFC 7776 appears to be very self contained and with removal of
> > content
> > that will be even more true.
>
>
> --
> Pete Resnick http://www.episteme.net/
> All connections to the world are tenuous at best
>