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

Bob Hinden <> Mon, 08 July 2019 15:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 823B91201E9; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 08:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.703
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.703 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, PDS_NO_HELO_DNS=1.295, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KVJBOa4rvIxD; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 08:19:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::433]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1301912018E; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 08:19:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id f9so17558717wre.12; Mon, 08 Jul 2019 08:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=pA77oj8r/xSRxeDjFC/7CmUglLNSyRdxklUQ0IxiIxA=; b=Ft9aLGR28/mvzRwVHKsG5pEyV2W8t8BHxJ6HEyS0gEEfE86MQk92CxP76GxDcSURWG Fgd+x/HXgkrnT1TVxHJ+VTu0R1XEnjjzsEJ2sOT+w8YgumtZO4tGBHYpol7nVFMSK+N/ AKVbvLzBszQoF1z32YfCImj+1zUCRcjw/2O1s07mlMF/g43VevEX620ESbHCYmtooqdU 8yuWJ7WtKamyZRAxXKDbPu6KoXLK+FFPnfcCRC3WVRZ/eRzm9zRlWZ/Cm3BmT5LNPN3g yToht2Oed90PtfpVEMH4rwhHQJf0XcUg7e5Twu1f5U20lb3CITpg2f1/jg2gYitVWeLH N20w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=pA77oj8r/xSRxeDjFC/7CmUglLNSyRdxklUQ0IxiIxA=; b=W1Skuzhwg1SuEbi11s7ONHVp2HXAo8tN9b4wW3s/oZW2x9hJTc5/bkXC3X5G5Fh5Eo FTz6VJyI0n7pi6AP5RVhTKj6CfxFNUl8jsMuoA7shHYvH2LQBb34QzYXX5RI1MbAOtSM azT93sd77UMHOPuDIElc1TK+jBrMi6RRZZ8L0V35dSf/AL/h0Qg6uvhAjZsbBlIp0Iwx uzufGVrgTvInChb+yIaSfrpxmJavn5Zaa5MjzKlXWR0HP2YEzOuEAyeK4lqKyl4AYjAN U5GzyxaHxkp5DPXe00IraVu9s8a40nnKh0twtTfogKtkQmCurGHWkL6KlffD7sdYQ3Fu crcw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV/wCNHeZ69EaHRXKVHYGiEEA/vF6G3XL7JnvzUHMq1D6QUF8gs dpHpWq5rQe3eFNZGOIgRAxo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwf5tFcyBDmoK669O3z/xQq+zgwuDeQunS8RybP41t6/5Ghf0qR2cp3/oDefZQXtkkcWZeQMg==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:9:: with SMTP id h9mr16814234wrx.271.1562599143553; Mon, 08 Jul 2019 08:19:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id x17sm13784338wrq.64.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 08 Jul 2019 08:19:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob Hinden <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_234D9F86-6F5C-4DA2-A480-D2B94488AAA3"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 08:18:57 -0700
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Bob Hinden <>, IASA 2 WG <>, Alissa Cooper <>, IESG <>, Brian Carpenter <>, Stephen Farrell <>
To: Barry Leiba <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Iasa20] Ballot positions on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: =?iso-8859-1?q?Discussions_relating_to_reorganising_the_IETF_administrative_structures_in_the_so_called_=93IASA_2=2E0=94_project=2E?= <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2019 15:19:08 -0000


> On Jul 8, 2019, at 7:43 AM, Barry Leiba <> 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:

     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.


> Barry