Re: PS Characterization Clarified
Scott O Bradner <sob@sobco.com> Wed, 18 September 2013 11:25 UTC
Return-Path: <sob@sobco.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 17DE111E822B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Sep 2013 04:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.495
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 lOjCw7Ukz+zO for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Sep 2013 04:25:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sobco.sobco.com (unknown [136.248.127.164]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B44AE11E8210 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Sep 2013 04:25:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE0B026CD31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Sep 2013 07:25:49 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sobco.com
Received: from sobco.sobco.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (sobco.sobco.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G65Eszyhd2xm for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Sep 2013 07:25:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from newdev.cadm.harvard.edu (newdev.cadm.harvard.edu [128.103.229.199]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 952DF26CD24 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Sep 2013 07:25:48 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
Subject: Re: PS Characterization Clarified
From: Scott O Bradner <sob@sobco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C24A4EC4-CD9A-48AE-AAD4-F259E91F435D@NLnetLabs.nl>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 07:25:47 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2C375CEB-66A4-4354-9E1A-D80CBA019D16@sobco.com>
References: <B8F661D1-1C45-4A4B-9EFE-C7E32A7654E7@NLnetLabs.nl> <FDF0E85C-83C1-4AC2-A6EA-FA0E2E3DD34C@NLnetLabs.nl> <5238DC29.6050409@qti.qualcomm.com> <4F37B49B-315C-4A63-BD80-E95F9A7969FE@sobco.com> <5238E174.4020109@qti.qualcomm.com> <4B8D6DBC8CF8EB1BB76A3601@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <C24A4EC4-CD9A-48AE-AAD4-F259E91F435D@NLnetLabs.nl>
To: IETF list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
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: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 11:25:58 -0000
John covered why I said that Pete's assertion is factually incorrect that said, I agree that being accurate here (that the IESG is the final decider and the body that changed the review from what was described in RFC 2026) may be counter productive when the document is reviewed outside of the IETF so changing most of the IESG reverences to read "IETF" is the right thing to do the one that should not be changed is the one that Olaf calls out at the end of the included message Scott On Sep 18, 2013, at 4:59 AM, Olaf Kolkman <olaf@NLnetLabs.nl> wrote: > > On 18 sep. 2013, at 01:54, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote: > >> Pete, >> >> I generally agree with your changes and consider them important >> -- the IESG should be seen in our procedural documents as >> evaluating and reflecting the consensus of the IETF, not acting >> independently of it. >> > > Agreed…. > >> Of the various places in the document in which "IESG" now >> appears, only one of them should, IMO, even be controversial. >> It is tied up with what I think is going on in your exchange >> with Scott: >> >> --On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 18:10 -0500 Pete Resnick >> <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote: >> >>>>> Section 2: >>> ... >>>>> "the IESG strengthened its review" >>> ... >>>>> The IETF as a whole, through directorate reviews, area >>>>> reviews, doctor reviews, *and* IESG reviews, has evolved, >>>>> strengthened, ensured, etc., its reviews. >>>>> >>>> I believe that change would be factually incorrect >>> >>> Which part of the above do you think is factually incorrect? >> >> The issue here --about which I mostly agree with Scott but still >> believe your fix is worth making-- is that the impetus for the >> increased and more intense review, including imposing a number >> of requirements that go well beyond those of 2026, did not >> originate in the community but entirely within the IESG. It >> didn't necessarily originate with explicit decisions. In many >> cases, it started with an AD taking the position that, unless >> certain changes were made or things explained to his (or >> occasionally her) satisfaction, the document would rot in the >> approval process. Later IESG moves to enable overrides and >> clarify conditions for "discuss" positions can be seen as >> attempts to remedy those abuses but, by then, it was too late >> for Proposed Standard. And, fwiw, those changes originated >> within the IESG and were not really subject to a community >> consensus process either. >> >> However, because the document will be read externally, I prefer >> that it be "IETF" in all of the places you identify. If we have >> to hold our noses and claim that the community authorized the >> IESG actions by failing to appeal or to recall the entire IESG, >> that would be true if unfortunate. I would not like to see >> anything in this document that appears to authorize IESG actions >> or process changes in the future that are not clearly authorized >> by community consensus regardless of how we interpret what >> happened in the past. >> > > > > But one of the things that we should try to maintain in making that change is the notion that the IESG does have a almost key-role in doing technical review. You made the point that that is an important distinction between 'us' and formal SDOs. > > > Therefore I propose that that last occurrence reads: > >> cross-area technical review performed by the IETF, exemplified by technical review by the full IESG at last stage of specification development. > > > I think that this language doesn't set precedence and doesn't prescribe how the review is done, only that the IESG does do review. > > > In full context: > > In fact, the IETF review is more extensive than that done in other > SDOs owing to the cross-area technical review performed by the > IETF,exemplified by technical review by the full IESG at last stage of > specification development. That position is further strengthened > by the common presence of interoperable running code and > implementation before publication as a Proposed Standard. > > > Does that work? > > --Olaf >
- PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Jari Arkko
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Scott O Bradner
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Brian E Carpenter
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified John C Klensin
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Jari Arkko
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Scott Brim
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Jari Arkko
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Scott O Bradner
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Barry Leiba
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Scott O. Bradner
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Scott Brim
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Ted Lemon
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Barry Leiba
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Randy Bush
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Spencer Dawkins
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified S Moonesamy
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Barry Leiba
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Carsten Bormann
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Scott O Bradner
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified John C Klensin
- RE: PS Characterization Clarified Adrian Farrel
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Carsten Bormann
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Barry Leiba
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified John C Klensin
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified John C Klensin
- Why we don't want to actually replace 2026 (was: … S Moonesamy
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Dave Cridland
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Alexey Melnikov
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Scott Brim
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified John C Klensin
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified John C Klensin
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: Why we don't want to actually replace 2026 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Pete Resnick
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Scott O. Bradner
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Pete Resnick
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified John C Klensin
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified John C Klensin
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Olaf Kolkman
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Scott O Bradner
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Pete Resnick
- Re: PS Characterization Clarified Jari Arkko