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

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: 04 September 2019 15:08
> > To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail]; Jon Peterson
> > <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > 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
>