Re: Comments on draft-roach-bis-documents-00

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

A big part of the problem I see, which I see addressed by this draft, is 
that as currently constituted we can not fix many existing protocols 
without doing a major modification to address security and / or privacy 
issues.

Hence the bit of text being discussed about not having DISCUSS or 
Abstain on the basis of not fixing existing security and privacy issues 
is important.

ADs are free to comment, and every WG I have seen takes such comments 
seriously.  So if the AD thinks there is a simple improvement in 
security and / or privacy that ought to be included, they can ask about 
it.

Yours,
Joel

On 5/9/19 6:28 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> Hiya,
> 
> I've read the draft and like it except for the bit
> SM quotes below.
> 
> On 09/05/2019 09:34, S Moonesamy wrote:
>> Hi Adam,
>>
>> There is the following sentence in Section 3.2 of
>> draft-roach-bis-documents-00:
>>
>>     "IESG members SHOULD NOT issue DISCUSS or ABSTAIN ballot positions
>>      based on unchanged text except as described in Section 3.3."
> 
> I'm fine with the idea that the IESG would mostly just
> review the diff, and the IESG do need to respect the
> fact that existing RFC text has IETF consensus, but I
> don't think it's ok to try to force ADs to ignore security
> or privacy issues that the proponents of a bis would
> like to ignore. I read the text above as doing that. I'm
> not saying that all such things ought always be fixed in
> bis drafts as we clearly do not do that, but a SHOULD NOT
> DISCUSS seems wrong.
> 
> Separately, if enough ADs ABSTAIN then the draft should
> have a problem. ABSTAIN ballots weren't that common when
> I was on the IESG so unless that's changed a lot I don't
> think that clause is useful or advisable.
> 
> So if that text stays in, I would hope that ADs would
> ignore it and try do what they consider correct. That may
> be another argument to not have a SHOULD NOT - just say
> that the goal is to keep reviews to the diff.
> 
> Lastly, I'd leave out that text because even if it were
> what the IESG wanted, it ought be in the discuss-criteria
> IESG statement and not in an RFC/BCP that derives from
> this draft. (It is good that it's there now, so I can
> whine about it though:-)
> 
> Cheers,
> S.
> 
> 
>>
>> Why is an ABSTAIN an issue?
>>
>> What about IESG member "comments"?  Can those comments be ignored?
>>
>> Regards,
>> S. Moonesamy
>>
>>