Re: [Iasa20] Ballot positions on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

[ Replying midway through the thread, because this seemed to be the
most appropriate message to reply to ]

On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 1:59 PM Stephen Farrell
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> On 05/07/2019 21:43, Bob Hinden wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >> On Jul 5, 2019, at 1:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter
> >> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm with Alissa on this. There are quite a lot of reasons why we
> >> might need RFC7437bisbis, some of which are much more serious than
> >> the various points raised by several ADs, but I believe we should
> >> first wrap up the changes required by the creation of IETF LLC.
> >
> > I agree.  Especially since we have a working LLC signing contracts
> > for us, spending money, etc, etc.  The IETF process documents like
> > RFC7437 need to be aligned as soon a possible.
> >
> >>
> >> I don't think rechartering IASA2 for this purpose would be
> >> appropriate at all. Starting a process that might lead to a new
> >> version of the POISED, POISED95 or POISSON WG would seem more
> >> suitable. See https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/poisson/about/ for
> >> example.
> >
> > I also agree.  Making changes to the NomCom process needs a new w.g.
> > focused on that.   That is not the focus on the IASA 2.0 w.g., nor
> > should it be.
>
> FWIW, I also agree with Brian and Bob.
>
> I'm not sure how much real energy there may be for a
> concrete set of work items for a POISED-like thing,
> but I do agree there're a set of potential work items
> each of which likely has a bunch of people who'd like
> to see 'em addressed.
>
> But yes, not in this WG, and not in a way that'd
> prevent finishing the chartered work here.

I've just changed my position from DISCUSS to NoObjection, and added:
-----
NOTE:
My original position was DISCUSS - I'm changing it to NoObjection, but
I'm still quite uncomfortable with this -- I view NoObjection as
signalling that I'm comfortable with the document.
"The IESG is expected to ensure that the documents are of a sufficient
quality for release as RFCs, that they describe their subject matter
well, and that there are no outstanding engineering issues that should
be addressed before publication. The degree of review will vary with
the intended status and perceived importance of the documents."
(RFC3710).

I view this document as very important, but as whole I don't think it
is "of a sufficient quality for release as RFC" and that it
"describe(s) their subject matter well" - there are some open
questions / places where clarification would help. I fully understand
the need to patch this to support IASA2 (and it's the right thing to
do), and the reasoning behind not opening up the entire document for
review and fixing all the bugs...
The paragraph which says "This revision addresses only the changes
required for IASA 2.0;should the community agree on other changes,
they will be addressed in future documents." addresses basically all
of my concerns, but I'd be **much** happier (and would be comfortable
voting "Yes") if it were moved from the Introduction into the Abstract
or made more prominent in some other way. "
------

I *did* read the "This revision addresses only the changes ..." when
originally reviewing document, but it is somewhat buried. I nodded,
thought "fair 'nuff, makes sense", and then stumbled when I found nits
/ areas to be clarified.
I think that this is a really important document, and support us
making it compatible with IASA 2.0 (duh!) -- but I really don't want
others to miss this important bit and think that No Objection means
that I think all of the document is perfect, or that we don't still
have areas for improvement.

W



>
> S.
>
> >
> > Thanks, Bob
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Regards Brian Carpenter
> >>
> >> On 06-Jul-19 06:41, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> >>> Dear IESG,
> >>>
> >>> I wanted to draw your special attention to this text in
> >>> draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis:
> >>>
> >>> "This revision addresses only the changes required for IASA 2.0;
> >>> should the community agree on other changes, they will be
> >>> addressed in future documents.”
> >>>
> >>> As well as this text in the IASA2 WG charter:
> >>>
> >>> "This working group is chartered to document the normative
> >>> changes to IETF administrative structures and processes necessary
> >>> to effectuate [the change to IASA 2.0].”
> >>>
> >>> If the IESG is not going to allow draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis or
> >>> other IASA2 documents to progress unless changes unrelated to
> >>> IASA 2.0 are made, I think the WG needs to be rechartered. The
> >>> authors and the WG purposefully did not make any other changes to
> >>> the base documents, so making other changes as a result of IESG
> >>> evaluation does not seem appropriate. I think the appropriate
> >>> thing to do would be for ADs who want to see that happen to start
> >>> a thread about re-chartering on the iasa20 list. (Note: this is
> >>> not my preference since I suspect it will delay the minimal
> >>> changes related to IASA 2.0 from being published for a long time,
> >>> but if that’s what the community wants I’ll support it.)
> >>>
> >>> Thanks, Alissa
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________ iasa20 mailing
> >>> list [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________ iasa20 mailing
> >> list [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________ iasa20 mailing list
> > [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
> >



-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf