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

["Pete Resnick" <[e-mail]>]

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.


-- 
Pete Resnick http://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best