Re: PS Characterization Clarified
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Tue, 17 September 2013 23:55 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 1685311E864F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 16:55:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rjrg9SkyBXR1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 16:55:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 799A511E8654 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 16:55:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1VM56m-000BUo-Nz; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 19:55:04 -0400
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 19:54:59 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com>
Subject: Re: PS Characterization Clarified
Message-ID: <4B8D6DBC8CF8EB1BB76A3601@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <5238E174.4020109@qti.qualcomm.com>
References: <B8F661D1-1C45-4A4B-9EFE-C7E32A7654E7@NLnetLabs.nl> <FDF0E85C-83C1-4AC2-A6EA-FA0E2E3DD34C@NLnetLabs.nl> <5238DC29.6050409@qti.qualcomm.com> <4F37B49B-315C-4A63-BD80-E95F9A7969FE@sobco.com> <5238E174.4020109@qti.qualcomm.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: IETF list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 23:55:14 -0000
Pete, I generally agree with your changes and consider them important -- the IESG should be seen in our procedural documents as evaluating and reflecting the consensus of the IETF, not acting independently of it. Of the various places in the document in which "IESG" now appears, only one of them should, IMO, even be controversial. It is tied up with what I think is going on in your exchange with Scott: --On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 18:10 -0500 Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote: >>> Section 2: >... >>> "the IESG strengthened its review" >... >>> The IETF as a whole, through directorate reviews, area >>> reviews, doctor reviews, *and* IESG reviews, has evolved, >>> strengthened, ensured, etc., its reviews. >>> >> I believe that change would be factually incorrect > > Which part of the above do you think is factually incorrect? The issue here --about which I mostly agree with Scott but still believe your fix is worth making-- is that the impetus for the increased and more intense review, including imposing a number of requirements that go well beyond those of 2026, did not originate in the community but entirely within the IESG. It didn't necessarily originate with explicit decisions. In many cases, it started with an AD taking the position that, unless certain changes were made or things explained to his (or occasionally her) satisfaction, the document would rot in the approval process. Later IESG moves to enable overrides and clarify conditions for "discuss" positions can be seen as attempts to remedy those abuses but, by then, it was too late for Proposed Standard. And, fwiw, those changes originated within the IESG and were not really subject to a community consensus process either. However, because the document will be read externally, I prefer that it be "IETF" in all of the places you identify. If we have to hold our noses and claim that the community authorized the IESG actions by failing to appeal or to recall the entire IESG, that would be true if unfortunate. I would not like to see anything in this document that appears to authorize IESG actions or process changes in the future that are not clearly authorized by community consensus regardless of how we interpret what happened in the past. john
- PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Jari Arkko
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Scott O Bradner
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Brian E Carpenter
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified John C Klensin
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Jari Arkko
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Scott Brim
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Jari Arkko
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Scott O Bradner
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Barry Leiba
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Scott O. Bradner
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Scott Brim
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Ted Lemon
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Barry Leiba
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Randy Bush
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Spencer Dawkins
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified S Moonesamy
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Barry Leiba
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Carsten Bormann
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Scott O Bradner
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified John C Klensin
- RE: PS Characterization Clarified Adrian Farrel
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Carsten Bormann
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Barry Leiba
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified John C Klensin
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified John C Klensin
- Why we don't want to actually replace 2026 (was: … S Moonesamy
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Dave Cridland
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Alexey Melnikov
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Scott Brim
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified John C Klensin
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified John C Klensin
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: Why we don't want to actually replace 2026 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Pete Resnick
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Scott O. Bradner
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Pete Resnick
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified John C Klensin
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified John C Klensin
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Scott O Bradner
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Pete Resnick
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Jari Arkko