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

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

Barry,

> On Jul 8, 2019, at 7:43 AM, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> Doesn’t it count for something that this document was approved by an earlier IESG in 2014?
> 
> You're being disingenuous.

Really?  The definition of disingenuous is:

  adjective
     not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows
     less about something than one really does.


> THIS document was never put before the
> IESG before.  The draft that became RFC 7437 was, but that was a
> different document.

But most of the text has been before the IESG before.  That’s why I said:

   Doesn’t it count for something that this document was approved by an
   earlier IESG in 2014?

> 
> Today, we're being asked to review draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis, not
> draft-kucherawy-rfc3777bis.
> 
> Now, first, it would have been nice to have been alerted that a
> thorough editorial review was not welcome *before* the document was
> put on the telechat agenda and a ballot was opened.  I spent a few
> hours working on it and being thorough, and would liked to have not
> wasted my time on things that will be ignored.

I agree that would have been better, but please note, I am only the document editor here.

> 
> Second, the working group charter says this:
> 
>   Aside from instances where they presently relate to IASA, it is outside the
>   scope of this working group to consider any changes to anything related to
>   the oversight or steering of the standards process as currently conducted by
>   the IESG and IAB, the appeal chain, the confirming bodies for existing IETF
>   and IAB appointments, the IRTF, or ISOC's memberships in other organizations.
> 
> I see a huge difference between not considering changes to the process
> (and oversight and steering)... and not considering editorial changes
> that correct or clarify existing text.  Clearly, not everyone agrees
> with me on that, but it's part of the job to which I've been appointed
> to review documents for correctness and clarity, and to call out areas
> where I think the documents fail.

If we want to make a lot of changes, then I think it will need at least another IETF last call, or given the other NomCom related issues being discussed recently, a new w.g.


> I'll note, for example, that in the text I've been trying to get
> discussed, in Section 3.8, this document -- THIS document -- already
> makes changes to what was in 7437, some of which were not required for
> the IASA2 changes.  It changes "nominating committee" to "NomCom" (why
> does that relate to IASA2?) and merges bullets 3 and 4 from the
> original.  I'm not suggesting that those changes should not have been
> made, nor that they caused the issue I'm questioning.  I'm only saying
> that we're already not being rigorous about limiting text changes to
> those absolutely necessary.  So let's get some perspective here.
> 

The intent for this change was to use the term that is in common use, but if it’s an issue we could go back to “nominating committee”.  I think that’s different than for example rewriting the text in Section 3.8. "Sitting Members and Directors” regarding the exception for the IAB.


>> In my view, this behavior from ADs does not add to the overall quality of the IETFs work,
>> it just makes more work for everyone and slows everything down.
> 
> Is it your view that if an error is missed once, we're stuck with it forever?

No, I don’t think I said that.


> 
> Am I really not adding to overall quality by asking for clarity in
> text that I think simply doesn't work as written?  I could be wrong
> when I say the text appears to be broken, but we're not having a real
> discussion about it, so I wouldn't know.  Maybe it's attempts to
> deflect discussions, rather than actually have them and resolve the
> issues, that makes more work for everyone and slows everything down.
> 
> I am not trying to block this document; quite the opposite: I think
> it's a critically important document, and I'm helping to make sure
> it's clear and correct in what it's saying.  I don't want to make
> changes to the process here.  I want to make sure there isn't
> something that, when something comes up that sends us to it, isn't
> clearly understandable.
> 
>> p.s. As the document editor, I will make the changes need to move this forward once I get direction from the w.g. chairs.
> 
> I have a large number of comments that are editorial, and which are
> not in the DISCUSS group.  Some of those are important, and some
> directly relate to errors in the text about IASA2 issues.  Please make
> sure you go through those and incorporate at least those in the latter
> group, along with any others that seem important enough to include.

Will do.

Bob


> 
> Barry