Re: [Iasa20] draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc2418bis-01.txt

[Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[e-mail]>]

These kinds of updates are not in scope for this WG, it seems to me.

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:01 PM John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Jason,
>
> For perspective, I think there is a longstanding problem with
> IETF procedural work.   I don't know how typical I am, but, in
> recent years, I've ended up with very little time to spend on
> IETF work.  Both personal preferences and my perceptions of the
> best interests of the Internet lead me to try to spend as large
> a portion of that time as possible on substantive work rather
> than procedures.  So, although I'm on the WG mailing list, I
> looked at the WG Charter and early discussions, accepted the
> explanation that this was about a largely technical change from
> the original "ISOC activity" model and corresponding IASA
> structure to a semi-separate LLC and the things that implies and
> the promise in the charter that the effort would have no effect
> one IETF procedures, and have not been paying in-depth
> attention.   I'm still not convinced that the changes are worth
> the trouble but, if the IESG and those who are active in the WG
> are convinced --and convinced you can get it right-- my attitude
> has been "go for it and I'll go spend my time on substantive
> technical work".
>
> However, that approach is conditioned on the WG being able to
> get all of it right.  Whether to adjust the terminology of 2418
> by update or replacement is a matter of taste and I'm happy to
> defer to the WG's consensus taste... However, if the WG manages
> to demonstrate that it can't produce an update to 2418 without
> unintended side effects or pushing the boundaries of the
> contract with the community implied by the charter, at least
> without significantly more effort than has been invested so far,
> then, as I see it, the balance changes from "WG choice" to
> "better go the update" route.   And, fwiw, while it is late in
> your process, you are, IMO at least, far better off finding that
> out now than getting the same feedback during IETF Last Call
> (potentially including appeals from the Last Call itself because
> the document fell outside the WG Charter into areas that would
> have drawn people who would have participated more actively in
> the WG effort had changes to IETF procedures been on the agenda).
>
> So, while I should have been doing other things, I've spent much
> of today looking at another document or two that might have been
> candidates for the "update" approach.  For better or worse, I've
> found the same sort of issues that I found with 2418bis: changes
> that should have been made if the document was to be a
> replacement, a substantive error or two, q0uestions about
> whether IETF procedures for document approval were being
> changes, and difficulties with longstanding rules about
> replacement ("obsoleting") documents.   In at least one case,
> the document has cleared WGLC but, given those issues, is
> clearly not ready for IETF LC.
>
> IMO, two documents with problems of this sort, including one
> that the WG was prepared to sign off on, takes the substantive
> part of the replace vs. update choice out of the realms of both
> "WG preference" and "isolated example".
>
> So, too bad this is late.  And too bad it is going to require
> more work.  However, it seems to me that we are better of
> catching these things now rather than later... and I hope that
> it does not suggest that we need to ask ourselves fundamental
> questions about the quality of the WG process in assembling and
> reviewing other documents.
>
> I sincerely hope you can avoid blaming the messengers.
>
> best,
>    john
>
>
>
>
> --On Monday, October 22, 2018 14:23 +0000 "Livingood, Jason"
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > We debated the update tactic some months ago. It seemed
> > whatever path we took, we might be criticized but we had to
> > pick one. This is very nearly the final document in that long
> > list, so it is interesting that its really only one of the
> > last few to see this issue raised. Of course it seems quite
> > possible we'll now spend more time debating it on email lists
> > that it'd take to produce the document updates. ;-)
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
Chief Technologist, Center for Democracy & Technology [https://www.cdt.org]
1401 K ST NW STE 200, Washington DC 20005-3497
e: [e-mail], p: 202.407.8825, pgp: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key
Fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10  1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871