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

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

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