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

"Pete Resnick" <> Wed, 04 September 2019 17:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 702AF120113; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 10:23:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G0-ft_CNyfSY; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 10:23:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83B99120013; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 10:23:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AF1B8B8D27B; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 12:23:19 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 79crB9RnDCxw; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 12:23:17 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C51CD8B8D270; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 12:23:16 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Pete Resnick" <>
To: "Adrian Farrel" <>
Cc: "Magnus Westerlund" <>, "The IESG" <>,, "Jon Peterson" <>,,
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 12:23:15 -0500
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.12.5r5635)
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <027b01d5632b$a6dc59e0$f4950da0$>
References: <> <027b01d5632b$a6dc59e0$f4950da0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Iasa20] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7776bis-02: (with DISCUSS)
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?= <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 17:23:24 -0000


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)?


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 <>
> Sent: 04 September 2019 15:08
> To: The IESG <>
> Cc:; Jon Peterson 
> <>;; 
> 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 
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
All connections to the world are tenuous at best