Re: [Idr] Adrian Farrel's Abstain on draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-03: (with COMMENT)

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Sun, 22 February 2015 21:24 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CE9A1A0077; Sun, 22 Feb 2015 13:24:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BBYfUQm2MTZ1; Sun, 22 Feb 2015 13:24:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C18B1A0076; Sun, 22 Feb 2015 13:24:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t1MLOLqh011705; Sun, 22 Feb 2015 21:24:21 GMT
Received: from 950129200 (194-118-86-70.adsl.highway.telekom.at [194.118.86.70]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t1MLOIr5011688 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 22 Feb 2015 21:24:19 GMT
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Susan Hares' <shares@ndzh.com>, 'The IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20150219142542.32426.43010.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <00be01d04c53$168e1070$43aa3150$@ndzh.com>
In-Reply-To: <00be01d04c53$168e1070$43aa3150$@ndzh.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 21:24:18 -0000
Message-ID: <008901d04ee5$ec5512a0$c4ff37e0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQHrnXlttzVtYxbkfvRl+HWLwfz9KQJqxliNnLM3v8A=
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-21352.002
X-TM-AS-Result: No--4.156-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--4.156-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: +f/wAVSGjujtXNZ1/W4Kv5mug812qIbzStGAgmKqWuUY0A95tjAn+4LX 8vlm0t0DL4UntFRsmMlMqjv/KpRrAh2P280ZiGmR8eSmTJSmEv1bdOqDH81KSs2HFlSQV+Ga6EY a61Q2aXC6F3U9V11NGWgG5r1TGK06/DpEmuzAtvuYBp8/dz1fd0DwlkRNC6PClRDMdYEo4UAwG6 nr0XT1jzMMT/M+RgTVeSm+12QzcRwMCLEGW7c2cEK9qlwiTElfwFk84lhmgzxaW2Ktn+I8/lWSM EnTg+B3TugcMrBENywnfsSu0E0+V4TXQY/IMbHiVo6mn+xXmdVimi8LvNfmrzEusO19NZVt0hN0 XSxan/TnzlXMYw4XMD3Al4zalJpFWBd6ltyXuvvpwNlr/k7TbimDB5kLb1HE9wq3cUG7C1A29Xu Sf6DrH0PL0bBP2Ps63YrhArMGZviLKNbpbHBhf7Nx8Ni+7eCu8EMUU3okYYXoer1EJMvG+yy0eZ xd5bV4FVIZbguNbjQVic9Khd8bx43dNLmVO1nyftwZ3X11IV0=
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/H42gMfIVOlH-0kcQUrbaznjLors>
Cc: morrowc@ops-netman.net, idr@ietf.org, draft-ietf-idr-as-migration.all@ietf.org, idr-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] Adrian Farrel's Abstain on draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-03: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 21:24:29 -0000

Sue,

It's good of you and Wes to try to address the concerns expressed in my Abstain. It reflects well on your concern to do the right thing by the IETF.

However, I abstained precisely because I did not think you should try to resolve my concerns. I believe that an attempt to do so will change significantly what the WG wanted to publish, and will cause a huge amount of churn for minimal progress.

So...

> Are you looking for a major rewrite of this draft or to scrap this effort?

Neither. I am looking to get out of the way of publication of the document.
As I recall, addressing Pete's Discuss would have been enough to have had the document approved on Thursday's IESG call.

> My understanding is that you want to split to:
[snip]

No, I don't want to split anything.

It's true that I don't want to have anything to do with this document in its current form. But also true that I don't ask for any changes to be made.

The IESG writes (in its advice to itself [http://www.ietf.org/iesg/voting-procedures.html]

|"Abstain" means "I cannot support sending this document forward." There
|are two obvious reasons an AD might post this ballot position: 
|- I am so strongly opposed to the document that I am unwilling to
|  "discuss". (Note that this should be very unusual.)
|- I oppose this document but understand that others differ and am
|  not going to stand in the way of the others.
|It is normal good practice for an AD to enter a Comment that explains the
|reason for their Abstain position.

I took the second bullet and gave my reasons.

That means that I am not sure that it is fruitful to discuss my reasons with me unless I have suddenly shed light in a corner that you or the authors believe now needs attention. 

Pip-pip,
Adrian