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

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I will clear but, I think the IESG very much needs a to have a
discussion on this topic. And I wouldn't be surprised if that needs to
then continue with the community. And I think the charter or WG
decision to make a old new style changes document here was very much
the wrong approach. Not having engaged I have a hard time to believe
that the constraints to only do necessary for a specific topic of
changes should be sufficient for the WG, and the IESG. 

If the IESG has problems keeping its fingers from discussing /
commenting that implies changes outside of the scope of the charter for
changes then we have a real problem with being dammed either way. 

Cheers

Magnus



On Wed, 2019-09-04 at 12:50 -0500, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 4 Sep 2019, at 12:38, Barry Leiba wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> • Stylistic issues of any kind. The IESG are welcome to copy-edit as 
> a non-blocking comment, but this should not obstruct document 
> processing.
> 
> Now, if Magnus really means that the document is literally
> unreadable, 
> that a reader truly couldn't figure out what was meant, I absolutely 
> agree that would be DISCUSSable. But I took him as being a little
> more 
> metaphorical by saying, "soup that is not readable".
> 
> > On the other hand, the first DISCUSS criterion
> > refers to "clarity issues"
> 
> Clarity issues which make it "impossible to implement", not just any 
> clarity issues. "Impossible" seems a pretty strong word.
> 
> > and the second that "the description is
> > unclear in such a way that the reader cannot understand it without
> > ambiguity."
> 
> Again, this comes down to "cannot understand". If that's really what 
> Magnus means, then DISCUSS away.
> 
> (I will note that another non-criteria is:
> 
> • Reiteration of the issues that have been raised and discussed as 
> part of WG or IETF Last Call, unless the AD believes they have not
> been 
> properly addressed.
> 
> Again, the caveat at the end might be reasonable, but Magnus didn't
> make 
> that clear.)
> 
> > 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 disagree with you or he on the point. I had the XML for 7776 
> dusted off and ready to go when we were told to go in this other 
> direction. As Adrian said, we are willing to take a change in
> direction 
> if that is the IESG decision.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> For large values of "serious", no doubt. I take that to mean,
> "anything 
> that cannot be safely fixed by the RFC Editor and leaves the
> document 
> non-understandable".
> 
> pr
> 
> > 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.
> 
> 
-- 
Cheers

Magnus Westerlund 


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Network Architecture & Protocols, Ericsson Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  [phone]
Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile [phone]
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------