Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev

["Andrew G. Malis" <[e-mail]>]

I agree with Stewart, I think a BOF is overkill for this particular short
and focused draft. Even absent current AD sponsorship, discussion and
refinement of the draft can continue on this list. If general community
consensus around a future revision of the draft can be shown on the list
(as usual, by the absence of continued commenting following a new
revision), it may then be more difficult for the IESG to not find at least
one member to sponsor the publication process, including IETF last call.

Cheers,
Andy


On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 5:29 AM Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
>
> On 25/04/2019 09:26, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> >>>     It doesn't make sense to ask a person who lacks extensive travel
> >>>     resources to fly to Canada to hold a BoF about a short draft.
> >>
> >> I understand the situation, and having been in that place for years, am
> empathetic.
> >>
> >> But the proposed alternative seems to be "take my draft as-is"
> >
> > That would certainly be a Bad Thing (TM).
> >
> > But why can't we operate through IETF business as usual? That is, debate
> the content of the draft on the mailing list (whichever one is deemed
> appropriate), make concrete proposals for change, update the draft until
> concerns have been addressed (RFC7282), test consensus with a last call,
> and move ahead to publication?
> >
> > Oh, I know why we can't do that: That approach requires an AD to sponsor
> the draft, and no AD has stepped up. (Just recall that agreeing to sponsor
> does not mean instant acceptance of the work and publication as an RFC, it
> is the start of the process that might still need long years of debate on
> the mailing list.)
>
> Given the amount of discussion, the "normal" process for something like
> this would be for the IETF Chair to ask for an IESG volunteer to sponsor
> the draft, and if one were not forthcoming to sponsor it themselves.
>
> Even if it was not to their personal liking all that is required is
> studied neutrality on the part of the IESG member and a fair hearing
> from all members of the IETF community.
>
> If it goes through due process, the result is the result, even if the
> result is not to the taste of the IESG.
>
> >
> > If (and this is perfectly possible) the problem statement is not obvious
> to readers of the draft, the answer is surely not to have a BoF where the
> proponents are asked to clarify the problem and scope: the answer would be
> to write a short email saying "I read your draft and I find the scope and
> problem statement unclear. Could you please write some more words to help
> me understand it." If (equally possible) someone wants to address a
> different problem or has a different view of what the scope should be, they
> do not need a BoF to have that discussion, they can raise their aspirations
> in an email.
> >
> > We do not need to hold a BoF every time anyone wants to suggest a small
> change to IETF process.
>
> I would agree.
>
> - Stewart
>
>