Re: [IAB] Last Call: Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm
Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Sun, 12 August 2012 19:04 UTC
Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.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 B7B5721F866E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:04:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.366
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.366 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.232, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 ePFUzkkMuTrO for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:04:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc2-s2.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc2-s2.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EF4021F8668 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:04:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU169-DS8 ([65.55.111.71]) by blu0-omc2-s2.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:04:23 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [24.16.96.166]
X-EIP: [L2TsDHUwpz/fn9y0yFMjv3L83V01CL0H]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU169-DS8ABEDAB29BAD65569BFC293B10@phx.gbl>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:05:09 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0146_01CD7882.B84B32F0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: Ac14vTr4K9SiFg9zRUGmDQzM0ZUYnA==
Content-Language: en-us
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Aug 2012 19:04:23.0066 (UTC) FILETIME=[48E3E7A0:01CD78BD]
Cc: Dave CROCKER <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
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: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 19:04:25 -0000
[BA] The reply below represents my personal opinion. Dave Crocker said: > It's true that this was not put into an Internet Draft. Apart from > that, we seem to be doing the right thing: - The IAB Chair announced > the text and the intent to sign it on 1 Aug. Two weeks is normal process for spontaneous consensus calls? When did the community approve that change in process? [BA] Thanks for raising this issue, Dave. A document that describes the processes utilized by Modern SDOs should probably take extra care to follow the applicable process. Below find my best guess as to what that is. At one point the suggestion was to publish the statement as an RFC; had this been done, the procedures to be followed would have been governed by the procedures for publication on the selected stream. For example, if the document were to have been published as an Informational RFC within the IAB stream, then RFC 4845 would apply. Section 3 states: 5. The chair of the IAB issues an IETF-wide Call for Comment on the IETF Announce mailing list. The comment period is normally no shorter than four weeks. However, AFAIK this document is not being considered for publication as an RFC (at least within the IAB stream), so RFC 4845 does not apply. > He asked for comments. No he didn't: "Please send strong objections..." This asserts a forceful bias against general comments and criticisms by establishing a very high threshhold for relevance. While no, no one is prevented from other kinds of postings, the bias is nonetheless established. [BA] Specifically, comments were requested to be sent to the IAB and/or to the IETF list. In the first iteration of comments, the IAB mailing list was given as the place to send comments, and a number of comments were received which resulted in changes to the document. While it might be considered inconvenient, similarly persuasive comments could be received in this round as well. As noted in the announcement, the intent is for the document to be signed by the IETF and IAB Chairs, both of whom are members of the IAB. Were the process followed in approval of IAB statements to be applied here, then IAB consensus would be required for approval. In making up their minds, members of the IAB can consider any relevant information, including the comments in this and the earlier round. Personally, in making up my mind I would look at the comments on their merit, ignoring the threshold in the announcement.
- Re: [IAB] Last Call: Affirmation of the Modern Gl… Bernard Aboba