Re: [Iasa20] draft-ietf-iasa2-consolidated-upd-06

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Friday, March 8, 2019 11:08 -0500 Alissa Cooper
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi John,
> 
>> On Mar 8, 2019, at 9:53 AM, John C Klensin
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --On Friday, March 8, 2019 06:30 -0500 Alissa Cooper
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi John,
>>> ...
>>>> However, I, and I assume most WG participants, am much more
>>>> interested in getting this work finished than in arguing so,
>>>> if you are putting on your Responsible AD hat and telling me
>>>> to change this, I will certainly do so.
>>> 
>>> Yes, I am.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Alissa
>> 
>> I will try to find the time to make the changes and get a new
>> version up over the weekend.  For the record, I believe that a
>> single AD making a decision like this without offering
>> evidence of either WG or IETF consensus to be an abuse of
>> power and hope it does not set a precedent but, as suggested
>> above, as far as this document is concerned, I just want to
>> move on.
> 
> The point of AD evaluation is to catch things like this. But
> if the WG chairs would like to issue a consensus call about
> whether this WG should do something outside its charter, I can
> wait to request the issuance of the IETF last call until that
> is done.
> 
> The evaluation of IETF consensus will occur after IETF last
> call has completed.

Alissa,

I don't want to drag this out and hope the WG Chairs and
Participants don't either.  However, to clarify my comment in
the light of your comment above, I think it is entirely
reasonable for you to call out your concern as part of AD review
and let the WG figure out what to do about that.  At the same
time, as a document editor who is just trying to follow WG
directions, I've got text that was put in at the direction of WG
participants confirmed by one of the co-chairs, that has been in
several consecutive I-Ds without, IIR, anyone in the WG
suggesting it be removed or restructured and certainly without
the co-chairs telling me to change it.  From that perspective, I
would have expected your comment/preference to trigger a WG
discussion and either different instructions to me from the WG
or a WG decision to push back.   In that context, the "abuse of
power" comment comes from your unilaterally telling me to change
text which I've assumed up to this point represents at least
rough WG consensus.

Separately, I think making decisions based on readings of a WG
charter that prevent a WG from addressing an issue discovered as
part of its work when that appears to be consistent with good
sense and the general intend of charter rules is a bad idea for
the IETF and that the precedents for it are, at best, mixed and
inconsistent.   But let's save that for another day.

best,
   john