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

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

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

You're being disingenuous.  THIS document was never put before the
IESG before.  The draft that became RFC 7437 was, but that was a
different document.

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.

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.

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.

> 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?

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.

Barry