Re: Status of this memo
Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Tue, 27 April 2021 22:22 UTC
Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 86B383A230F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 15:22:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.4, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 Zwi559M8VhKY for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 15:22:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 822D13A230B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 15:22:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 13RMMKQx010971 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 27 Apr 2021 18:22:25 -0400
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 15:22:19 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Status of this memo
Message-ID: <20210427222219.GN79563@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <9ACE59FA-30B6-475A-AF6B-4B874E4A2788@eggert.org> <1804294246.5904.1619512137931@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <D653D3B2-7666-409A-B856-2A4B1BA958CA@eggert.org> <3DBB64B1-40B8-4BC3-B66C-7F9B7F395874@akamai.com> <b5210c71-9500-3dba-05d2-4ae1c6ad16e9@network-heretics.com> <CAA=duU1VJs2vCE=uCF=fXO7FNedn9yPAaZWTgcaAiHTexA8uWA@mail.gmail.com> <CAF4+nEEz4x3HtUhWQ0ONYCpyHy27E4u7_chVEuHi3rDr+sc39A@mail.gmail.com> <b3762d56-bff2-6f71-caa2-69d34e81b9dc@network-heretics.com> <20210427215415.GK79563@kduck.mit.edu> <aafedd93-0f90-aaa4-966e-8fef9573149e@network-heretics.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <aafedd93-0f90-aaa4-966e-8fef9573149e@network-heretics.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/4OeDDqMxWQd8LM4RPkHXROOkmpo>
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: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 22:22:35 -0000
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 06:09:31PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote: > On 4/27/21 5:54 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > >> emphatically disagree, and I believe that's a particularly harmful > >> concept to promote. > > Could you elaborate more on how your position relates to the BCP 25 > > description of "Document Editor"? §6.3 of RFC 2418 has: > > > > Most IETF working groups focus their efforts on a document, or set of > > documents, that capture the results of the group's work. A working > > group generally designates a person or persons to serve as the Editor > > for a particular document. The Document Editor is responsible for > > ensuring that the contents of the document accurately reflect the > > decisions that have been made by the working group. > > In my experience WGs have often accepted the original > author(s)/editor(s) of a document as the Document Editor, and done so > without much (if any) formality. I think it mostly works > > I'm not sure what this has to do, however, with the bit of the reply > that you quoted. My understanding is that you are objecting to statements that "a WG draft is one where the WG has taken over change control". I see your comments elsewhere that the author/editor should have freedom to make drastic changes, especially in earlier revisions, to attempt to improve the document. I think I agree with you in the sense that requiring pre-approval to all changes to the text of a WG document hinders progress, but I also think that if there is a conflict between what the editor wants to do and what the WG wants to do, the editor must yield to the WG (or be replaced). In this sense I would say that the WG has change control, since the WG consensus prevails. I would like to understand how you are understanding the concept of "change control" such that you do not want to say that "the WG has change control over a WG document", especially in light of the BCP statement that the document editor has to reflect the WG's decisions. Does that clarify what I'm trying to ask for? Thanks, Ben
- Status of this memo Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Status of this memo Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Status of this memo Lars Eggert
- Re: Status of this memo Vittorio Bertola
- Re: Status of this memo Lars Eggert
- Re: Status of this memo Donald Eastlake
- Re: Status of this memo Carsten Bormann
- Re: Status of this memo Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Carsten Bormann
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Lars Eggert
- Re: Status of this memo Lloyd W
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Lars Eggert
- Re: Status of this memo Scott Brim
- Re: Status of this memo Vittorio Bertola
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Scott Bradner
- Re: Status of this memo Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
- Re: Status of this memo Salz, Rich
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Status of this memo Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Martin Vigoureux
- Re: Status of this memo Carsten Bormann
- Re: Status of this memo Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Bob Hinden
- Re: Status of this memo Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Status of this memo Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Status of this memo Donald Eastlake
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Donald Eastlake
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Donald Eastlake
- Re: Status of this memo Donald Eastlake
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- RE: Status of this memo Michael McBride
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Carsten Bormann
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Donald Eastlake
- Re: Status of this memo Donald Eastlake
- Re: Status of this memo Donald Eastlake
- Re: Status of this memo John C Klensin
- Re: Status of this memo Martin Vigoureux
- Re: Status of this memo Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Status of this memo John C Klensin
- Re: Status of this memo Michael StJohns
- Re: Status of this memo Martin Vigoureux
- Re: Status of this memo Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Status of this memo Randy Presuhn
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Status of this memo Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Status of this memo Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Status of this memo John C Klensin
- Re: Status of this memo ned+ietf
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Status of this memo [NOTE WELL] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo [WG consensus] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Status of this memo [name remixing] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Status of this memo Scott Bradner
- Re: Status of this memo Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Status of this memo [name remixing] Christian Huitema
- Re: Status of this memo Michael StJohns
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo ned+ietf
- Re: Status of this memo Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Status of this memo [NOTE WELL] Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Status of this memo [WG consensus] Theodore Ts'o
- Re: Status of this memo Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Status of this memo John C Klensin
- Re: Status of this memo Lloyd W
- Re: Status of this memo John C Klensin
- Re: Status of this memo Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: Status of this memo Simon Josefsson
- Re: Status of this memo Lloyd W
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Keith Moore
- Re: Status of this memo Salz, Rich
- RE: Status of this memo Gorman, Pierce
- Re: Status of this memo Nick Hilliard
- Re: Status of this memo tom petch
- Re: Status of this memo Warren Kumari
- Re: Status of this memo Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Status of this memo S Moonesamy