Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 10 August 2008 23:07 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24E1E28C1EF; Sun, 10 Aug 2008 16:07:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C0BD28C1E6 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Aug 2008 16:07:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PodZI22xFld4 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Aug 2008 16:07:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.225]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CCF128C1EF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Aug 2008 16:07:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id b25so1633712rvf.49 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Aug 2008 16:07:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Lw0w0OZmGheFPICVLp3TDgsRtscFGtfF4sxB4drl6SI=; b=n1FnRwTuziO5sjMn9K1pb2psfiezGyEaBKeel+yQc4WthcUYJUxWqCoLVDivkUKhmj LO+rsnWqr0Z4r22l8rinAvzll6QMIiYIW1rYGNMh+fx5OIquC3BxNVKzhU8zk48t2srk lortgSyL2RpNIh/mM1r9RPZcqng9u574vDeg0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=bm54YinWduZQT/ZWMGzoYSNMQxbUDJVwqWDBbtPmPcupEeojPxCHgbPAAYevgoUR73 c0FY1G03YUoLCJ1O+u/lSG8umWNLEXVvbky87T0agQg3SkRld2sCZ3Cz3DLUiKTZJDFf eS+/FDlxoWuVtmV8va3JbDhaz+Hs5A9JM3Eyk=
Received: by 10.140.247.11 with SMTP id u11mr3052458rvh.37.1218409637926; Sun, 10 Aug 2008 16:07:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?130.216.38.124? ( [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l31sm7395547rvb.6.2008.08.10.16.07.16 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 10 Aug 2008 16:07:17 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <489F7496.1090608@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:07:02 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Subject: Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist
References: <97789FA162BD4EEA9E668BD21E372BAD@BertLaptop> <489DC3E0.3000202@dcrocker.net> <46FE4022D7A994D15EA0F360@p3.JCK.COM> <0CDF1105EE0F431B9B8D0D6B8D9AFC7A@BertLaptop> <EFB863C6392FD44E6F24541C@p3.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <EFB863C6392FD44E6F24541C@p3.JCK.COM>
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, dcrocker@bbiw.net
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

On 2008-08-10 07:58, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> --On Saturday, 09 August, 2008 20:52 +0200 "Bert Wijnen
> \\(IETF\\)" <bertietf@bwijnen.net> wrote:
> 
>> John and Dave,
>>
>> I think that both of you (and some others) arwe looking at the
>> ID_Checklist
>> too much as if it is part of our (rigid) process. Our
>> processes aredescribed
>> in formally approved BCP documents.
>>
>> The ID-Checklist is intended (or at least that is how it
>> started, and as far
>> as I am concerned that is still the intention) to help in a
>> few areas:
> 
> Bert,
> 
> We are in complete and utter agreement with each other about the
> appropriate role of the ID_Checklist.  For better or worse, the
> IESG apparently does not agree, as evidenced most recently in
> their response to my appeal about turning a suggestion from the
> original version of the Checklist into a firm rule without
> having that explicitly confirmed by the community.
> 
> We also agree that revising the Checklist into a document that
> is suitable for use as part of a package of firm rules is a
> rather different job than updating it while being consistent
> with its original purpose.
> 
> So I withdraw my suggestion and comments but strongly suggest
> that you make sure that your intentions for the document and
> those of the IESG are in synch before proceeding much further.

I'd like to say that both as an author and as a reviewer, I have
always found both the ID checklist and the IDnits checker to be
of immense pragmatic value. Obviously, if the checklist or the
checker complains about something that isn't obviously a bug,
the author, shepherd, AD or reviewer will have to enter "think"
mode or even "negotiate" mode. I agree that it's a good idea
to be clear about that.

    Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf