Re: New Version Notification for draft-resnick-variance-00.txt

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Sat, 28 March 2020 14:28 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAFC53A00C1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 07:28:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.646
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.646 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 76uZXU-ibxBb for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 07:28:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-f48.google.com (mail-ot1-f48.google.com [209.85.210.48]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D7653A00B0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 07:28:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-f48.google.com with SMTP id f52so12961479otf.8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 07:28:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UQbfY/4fM9WUe1ASttyTgTvzE9iKISprOalSlIhDSEc=; b=IcttRGvqCjdLRzXaIZYjKUkfCXlshxWWf6xGk39iXoYH8ENW/WbK/eI8o8pT17C+pC KlTXzUiWDVe4JqBLGq/2YAKHID+ONWHIOxjsgb+fGJP7omfEmaCCVnIetUCOUo/hkKz1 Z1XTowxFCtG3NL6Oc+8/y2lGvQF6S2iavtTjFdOm3CkgtrhjGAUy1rsh58FBgpDDnVE1 w1lzQKbQHO/Pnv07ydeueyqjishmkW/m7G6ysfUGB7aiPmzZODU46SWGrIUKsN/KIHB3 qs2FQmc10uLW4qAYMStI402qSojcqzvmO7KxB2IRUEeKPlI7sweg/+5FRpaJi6i5o53l DJZA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ1zyZoZICRavQ+rxtd/bUJDN/K2hKNSrhJlY0TizVW+P3ZZkrwG czS4uxeqBCVjw3r+XjP4Ep8c+ulfDloB5UK5c2hURA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vtEnSfyYFuIzAX0ihjpGBACQAkNrfbx47Jhq5gKDY68ooTXw3n4jT1Bsb7kFOTQteipPOMzVf6m9OyVRv6n8Zw=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:6b98:: with SMTP id b24mr2759862otq.242.1585405706610; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 07:28:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <158533925458.17797.13806166303625482245@ietfa.amsl.com> <AE66200A-E718-4BF6-BA87-EE427A0BF971@episteme.net>
In-Reply-To: <AE66200A-E718-4BF6-BA87-EE427A0BF971@episteme.net>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2020 10:28:15 -0400
Message-ID: <CAC4RtVBtELLAK86PKbQXpCXWsGMY8-ygR0sF8Sz3MKobOvSRDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-resnick-variance-00.txt
To: Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-zI5h2A0ZE8Mxo4Py6a4YpIMhtE>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2020 14:28:29 -0000

The main issue I have with this as written is that the process it
describes for making the exception can still take too long.  The
*best* we can do in the described process is a little more than four
weeks: publish a draft and immediately last-call it, allow the last
call to run for 4 weeks, then have an emergency IESG meeting to
approve it.  If everyone's on top of everything, that can get approval
in less than 5 weeks.  For *this* case, that would be enough if we did
not ALSO have to get this BCP approved.

There could be situations that are more urgent than that.  What if we
should encounter a situation that needed a decision in three weeks?

I would be happier, if we're going in this direction, to include an
escape for real time-sensitive emergencies that allows the IESG to
make a decision as necessary, with appropriate accountability to the
community for it.

Barry

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 4:03 PM Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net> wrote:
>
> When I posted my suggestion for the short-term fix for the 2020-2021
> NomCom, I mentioned that we would have to publish it as a BCP. Offline,
> Barry asked me why I thought publishing a new BCP was necessary for this
> one-off exception. But we don't have a mechanism in the IETF to directly
> violate a requirement of a BCP without writing another BCP. (Even the
> variance procedure for the standards-track document process defined in
> 2026 section 9 requires a published BCP.) He suggested that maybe we
> should have a process to do so. So I wrote a 3-page (well, 2-page plus
> boilerplate) BCP for a variance procedure for one-off or short-lived
> circumstances. I stole most of the text from 2026 section 9. If folks
> think this is sane, this will give us a simple procedure for saying,
> "Crazy thing happened that doesn't need to be documented beyond the
> mailing list and the IETF web site."
>
> pr
> --
> Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
> All connections to the world are tenuous at best
>
> Forwarded message:
>
> > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
> > To: Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>, Peter W. Resnick
> > <resnick@episteme.net>
> > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-resnick-variance-00.txt
> > Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 13:00:54 -0700
> >
> > A new version of I-D, draft-resnick-variance-00.txt
> > has been successfully submitted by Peter W. Resnick and posted to the
> > IETF repository.
> >
> > Name:         draft-resnick-variance
> > Revision:     00
> > Title:                Variances to Provisions of Best Current Practices
> > Document date:        2020-03-27
> > Group:                Individual Submission
> > Pages:                3
> > URL:
> > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-resnick-variance-00.txt
> > Status:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-resnick-variance/
> > Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-resnick-variance-00
> > Htmlized:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-resnick-variance
> >
> >
> > Abstract:
> >    From time to time, there are unforeseen circumstances which make
> >    following the requirements of a Best Current Practice (BCP)
> >    untenable, or where the procedures described in the BCP gives no
> >    guidance.  This document defines a process for the IETF to grant a
> >    variance to any IETF process for a single use or of very short
> >    duration.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> > submission
> > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> >
> > The IETF Secretariat
>