Re: Status of this memo

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Wed, 28 April 2021 06:25 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@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 189993A1B6F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 23:25:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 4o6zAGWpg0VY for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 23:25:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua1-x936.google.com (mail-ua1-x936.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::936]) (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 2B5703A1B6E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 23:25:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-x936.google.com with SMTP id v23so19389020uaq.13 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 23:25:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=q2VzrWBkYSOvA1qoQgs3IgN6uHsI85vcVVimU+5ryEE=; b=HycniBbmZHGMSZj4Pl110hlI3Imz10R4uYBtWEv5BIGiVApTZ2490J4fblWJJoHC8F 1C6sOYWrB781hwrOI2UWAs2x0zuGpVf1BXx6eDjpWi3Gt+Yo0z3dIc4liNZPnBjd9IT9 hdn+MaDLswjDyuiDI6PQqR2cvNHkIqiVQzS4SHAT76V6njEUAd0FDcAhJP5I4SIzWyRZ lI4EKWAyf6UHuZqBEKoJghauMjFJzVLGZFVgvfxH6QLrsR7oPHzsu3rW8H53VDG0fLPk daP7DJ7ksJ2CARVDUVhRte4vUQzc3fzeBx6NLCMARt9OwVXIW9ikz+ujuCDsy8qRDEh+ lHbQ==
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=q2VzrWBkYSOvA1qoQgs3IgN6uHsI85vcVVimU+5ryEE=; b=YRu0N5j7SxI4pOE7FBt75bv7VYaIswRB+rMr8WVbf9lSDGp3ikr+V7132XIBLiYDpC +UKPTA2c0GXn2M6GGTJmLiT28nJZ0WY6/jQvlokECggbTKRNCQSSAG9o1fuxH6EqzaUl 1daN5f/nGLetbD1mmxjPW4vnPzfjDobJdLojaFOKxBOYbnyKdtWoxRDk+sB65dxqVatF avONRtFiIhnpIcclKyNzy9Or6fkF7hZ+wniXMF6K+THpftKojPBys8ycSlOa6Z4uHnNd lPfeFoijg9cimogczpuuxRGPYimAIuFt8Vq9IAhDlm92DpTBL1x/rHxqZ7CP5Ldr6obM s8ug==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531GD9OqoTZCvHJokRaJHFdLs4duplnwBlUtunTqJvpYIQcCcnhA NHvIlzHNPlcJchV7AsF8ptMHf6AYofVfmu998co=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwpAxfnPRp+C4U0KDt1Nfumw0yfmqXHNXQ1oo/Dwi4Q7DWnvX67ql2LYYAV/9iM04Hg/kkScLkuJdY00u6xOlw=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:4757:: with SMTP id i23mr250193uac.87.1619591112594; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 23:25:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <376f83f0-89a3-cd0e-1792-c8434bd8a5d2@gmail.com> <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> <2c48c55c-fd37-6ced-e025-707eb145a27b@nokia.com> <CAA=duU1zuZ0ae_fK9vQkkRxFffgitLpATxwNcpfeftepBpY4=w@mail.gmail.com> <0554cec1-71e7-72fd-1f4d-ca9977943425@comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <0554cec1-71e7-72fd-1f4d-ca9977943425@comcast.net>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 23:25:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZVto8W0veNP0v53yG5K+JRRAB26enHO0eXkFPYFJA7ig@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Status of this memo
To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f297d405c10270d7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/4zO4nCNyRo_vq6hYqXCAWeGIsek>
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: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 06:25:16 -0000

On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 1:15 PM Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
wrote:

> Content consensus of a draft document is judged formally only during
> WGLC.    *The consensus to rebrand the draft document to a WG draft is
> mere housekeeping that has no meaning outside of the WG* and does not
> necessarily affect the way the draft is edited and updated.   WG drafts can
> and do fail of achieving WG content consensus.
>

When I'm acting as a document editor, it's my job to record the consensus
of the working group.  (Is it different if I'm an author?  Maybe not.)
Effectively what I'm doing in that role is judging the consensus of
completed discussions on this point or that one and modifying the document
accordingly.  Sometimes that might just be writing down what the chair
declares to be consensus, or sometimes I'm being trusted by the chair to do
that on my own for each revision I publish, and in either case WGLC is the
last big chance for the WG to verify that I did it correctly.

Also what you're saying is strictly true, but the fact that the tools treat
them differently these days based on the name, and the published guidelines
do establish a naming convention, could be perceived as more than mere
housekeeping.

In my experience, the WG does NOT gain control of the document (and I have
> several worked examples in the DNSOP WG).  In some cases, if it did, I
> might be more successful at getting fixes adopted against the author's
> will, but I think making the WG directly in control of the content of a
> given document prior to the WG submitting it for publication is generally a
> bad idea.
>

If the content must ultimately contain the consensus output of the working
group on a particular topic, I don't understand how that sidesteps what I
think of as "control".

-MSK