Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") side meeting at IETF105.

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Wed, 03 July 2019 22:18 UTC

Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
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 9DE84120677 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 15:18:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 yEsAeC8QHfQm for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 15:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x733.google.com (mail-qk1-x733.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::733]) (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 8AD4812065E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 15:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x733.google.com with SMTP id m14so4113418qka.10 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Jul 2019 15:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=0ORoYBxQqWcJs7gOFn63CXioQ3r/Q0qhF8fZOgsmqLs=; b=gXJjL8Ye7unh1x4+y8rOLCJDAWUncar+q1rzZurOk04mSxuidJHqNHgO6Z2TtI3L6q i4XKWik3BPn6vf8hbF2luKHhI98lUFlz7ivpvtb/rIWTjzzlDOarzHa3P8il6v1yZwUt NSeWNBVEB5ArioO+NTz/7hkrJtrfPPRzGE+TRVqcqsJya96rofunOqv4IR9D7HRzZE7F rah0c0IbnFGDmzlMwc5x6+nFteL2IK63PgS1zN6ueJzvqIkGgzQEC6KkbMwjjy1zMRKZ Di3CJryHxvEVwpZLLXVEULmaBp1LrzI7725KddLkHNnAOggdFAEUvkoGyvwSb5uuQ8Pa YuCQ==
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=0ORoYBxQqWcJs7gOFn63CXioQ3r/Q0qhF8fZOgsmqLs=; b=F/N5WVQRS7zPYESH2ZGlbr2pXX7NMuhiYvpOcXeqMaQb0oMQR1FG+rgJUdVksjCdtv hgjKINmi34L1WX14eVECxFi9nZKlgOM/qPe8LHlb7JLb9VZIA7D298clXM+ZWsAuri3a 2mqQi+6Pxw1QG1Lv8xUkk9StW5ZXxghskYw5q2GVu/Be5955y7+C5bK0YDypJi6f+zQe eYB3pJUQGjemBfRj9UAgizvXsRDYgY8vkimdQih2ETSZ4kA8DeLgKpLVWXJJ4D4klcdl gOWw+C1DFnsyMRqkNTLLGCOvwjOzqjvxSb4U4OTGOsPe+qp4KppLY/DnUbJUI42OCL7c L3lw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVY5GxKjcKcgrEi9GMzbdfgTBkcTB24MH4xzVZcadFvqW4AJbkB Ft5Y2tF9iI7F3jk4fb5bNSnAo/2hA6zk8mv+rkNgcUZpZhA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqynhiRDGVMV8xM2mxSTx2uNGAAR47jWw928ICO5/rynMj1YaKIZw/R0jrhAwUUA86pCPB7AW4tXwSaqMuyDZww=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:4c92:: with SMTP id z140mr32657013qka.245.1562192301997; Wed, 03 Jul 2019 15:18:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHw9_iKv7xDY-rT98F_BAEvGOGbWGL7UpXS42rSVLsHB+=SOZg@mail.gmail.com> <4567879e-aa29-aeae-72e9-33d148d30eed@network-heretics.com> <CAL02cgToQWmOrfOxS_dc4KRtT9e0PXNzmhWZHkRUyV_3V=E-mQ@mail.gmail.com> <0856af71-4d84-09d1-834d-12ac7252420c@network-heretics.com> <CAL02cgQ9qWVUTPW=Cpx=r32k3i1PLgfp5ax0pKMdH0nKObcKTg@mail.gmail.com> <e8d28a7f-128d-e8d0-17d3-146c6ff5b546@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <e8d28a7f-128d-e8d0-17d3-146c6ff5b546@joelhalpern.com>
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2019 15:18:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHw9_i+UBs85P+gjcF6BJd1_WD2qFrrYCnXb4rtcG9Hepqm37w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") side meeting at IETF105.
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003b5a70058cce3d11"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/OQ7JE5PgTJYNtZduVRMuBOGEusY>
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, 03 Jul 2019 22:18:34 -0000

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 1:34 PM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:

> Let me phrase it differently, with a similar point to Keith's
>
> An IETF working group can say "we think this has the right content, but
> we are not yet handing it to the AD because ..."
> That is a form of stability
> It is NOT a promise not to change the content before RFC publication.
> As an example, I as co-chair thought the NSH spec was very stable, and
> then a technical issue was raised that required an incompatible change.
> It was still a working group document.  We made the change.


Exactly.



>
> Further, a working group can not label a draft in a way that suggests
> that there is IETF consensus in support of the document.  That is not
> its purview.  And is believe the implication that Keith is concerned about.


Yes, it is in no way appropriate to claim / imply that the document has
IETF consensus, any more than it is appropriate to claim that an ID does.
If this idea were to go ahead, we could adapt it to have (more prominent,
with asterisks and similar!) boilerplate to clarify that this is only what
the WG currently thinks, and isn’t an IETF consensus, or an rfc or anything
else...


> I do not expect that either Heather or Warren were looking at the later
> interpretation.  But I can see how someone reading the email could
> reasonably be concerned about such over-ambition.


Fair - that wasn’t the idea, but it definitely need clarification...


> And your response that working groups can publish whatever they want is
> at best misleading.  It is true that the content of I-Ds is up to the
> working group.  The labeling of them is NOT up to the working group.
> (We do, consciously, deliberately, and to significant advantage, make
> all our works-in-progress visible to the world.  They are labelled as
> such.)
>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
> PS: I am not sure what the general benefit of marking an I-D as 'stable"
> would be.


Primary, if you are external to the IETF, and want to get a “snapshot” of
what the WG has agreed to on a draft.
As an example, I was recently working on a draft where people started
implementing bits which were still very much under discussion - this hurt
the draft because it made it hard to change. I made some proposed edits to
this section anyway to get WG feedback... and implementers suddenly changed
to this...
After a few rounds of “hey, we are changing this again” implementers got
annoyed, the WG got annoyed, and I got annoyed.

I would have liked to be able to easily signal “if you want to implement,
this version is mostly sane. It’s obviously still subject to change, but at
least more than the authors think it’s reasonable.” versus “this version
has many bits which we don’t have WG agreement on: we put them in so they
can be reviewed. Please wait till we agree that it isn’t filled with
craziness before implementing, etc.”


We still would not want it normatively cited.


Indeed. As the FAQ section says, ‘tis just a draft, just like any other...

I tried to
> construct the most positive such label in teh example above.  I may or
> may not have time to join the side-meeting.
>
> On 7/3/19 4:23 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 4:18 PM Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com
> > <mailto:moore@network-heretics.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     On 7/3/19 4:15 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>     On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 4:10 PM Keith Moore
> >>     <moore@network-heretics.com <mailto:moore@network-heretics.com>>
> >>     wrote:
> >>
> >>         On 7/3/19 4:04 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> >>
> >>         > Hi there all,
> >>         >
> >>         > TL;DR: Being able to mark a specific version of an *Internet
> >>         Draft* as
> >>         > “stable” would often be useful. By encoding information in
> >>         the name
> >>         > (stable-foo-bar-00) we can do this.
> >>         >
> >>         > Heather and I will be holding a side meeting at IETF 105 to
> >>         discuss
> >>         > the idea and get feedback.
> >>         > When: Tue, July 23, 3:00pm – 4:30pm
> >>         > Where: C2 (21st Floor)
> >>
> >>         It seems to me that this would defeat the entire purpose of
> >>         Internet-Drafts and serve to circumvent the IETF process. There
> >>         should be no expectation of stability until a document has
> >>         reached
> >>         IETF-wide consensus.
> >>
> >>
> >>     Why is it necessary to conjoin those two things?
> >
> >     Because a working group does not have the authority to make such
> >     decisions on its own.   To the extent that it would be desirable to
> >     invest such authority in some body for some specific purpose, a
> >     working group is the wrong kind of body to do that.   The norms
> >     around IETF WG operation aren't the right ones for such a body.
> >
> >
> > Doesn't have the authority to publish stable specifications?  Obviously,
> > a WG can't publish something and claim it has consensus or is an RFC.
> > But WGs already have the ability to publish stable docs, by publishing
> > them on github or on IPFS.  This is just about making them easier to
> > find and reference.
> >
> > I think maybe you're over-inflating the significance of this proposal.
> >
> > --Richard
>
> --
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in
the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
pants.
   ---maf