Re: [ippm] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-22: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alvaro and Alissa, and other ADs who supported Alvaro's DISCUSS #2,

Alvaro and I have come to agreement on revised text,
please see below.

Al

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alvaro Retana [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 1:00 PM
> To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-
> [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-
> 22: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> On December 5, 2019 at 7:30:22 AM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) wrote:
> 
> Al:
> 
> Hi!
> 
> 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Alvaro Retana [mailto:[e-mail]]
> ...
> > > On December 4, 2019 at 1:38:07 PM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) wrote:
> ...
> > > > If an RFC-to-be includes a Performance Metric and a proposed
> Performance
> > > > Metrics Registry entry, but the IANA and Performance Metric Expert
> review
> > > > determines that one or more of the Section 5 criteria have not been
> met,
> > > > then the IESG approval process MUST proceed with the proposed
> Performance
> > > > Metrics Registry entry removed from the text. When the RFC-to-be
> authors
> > > > are ready to show evidence of meeting the criteria in section 5,
> they
> > > > SHOULD re-submit the proposed Performance Metrics Registry entry to
> IANA
> > > > to be evaluated in consultation with the Performance Metric Experts
> for
> > > > registration at that time.
> > >
> > > This text basically says that if the criteria in §5 is not met, then
> > > the specific entry must not be in the RFC. At some point in the
> > > future (when the §5 criteria is met), publication of the entry can
> > > proceed -- presumably in a different RFC.
> > [acm]
> > Yes.
> > >
> > > As Alissa mentioned in her DISCUSS, the text needs to be generalized
> > > to cover specifications from other SDOs. I'm not sure how preventing
> > > publication would work there.
> > [acm]
> > It doesn't apply to other SDOs.
> > There are process points that only apply to IETF and RFCs-to-be,
> > such as the one we are discussing.
> > IANA can receive a request from other SDOs directly, and
> > we cover those cases separately. IWO, we do not generalize
> > every instance of RFC to "spec", because IANA review
> > coincides with IIESG review.
> 
> Your answer made go look at §8.1 again and the paragraph we're
> discussing in context.  Just one suggestion: s/then the IESG approval
> process MUST proceed with the proposed Performance Metrics Registry
> entry removed from the text./then the proposed Performance Metrics
> Registry entry MUST be removed from the text.
> 
> I trust that this text will make it into your next update, so I'm
> clearing my DISCUSS.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Alvaro.
[acm] 
Thanks, I've made that change in the working text, and it will appear
in the next version.  Thanks for clearing your DISCUSS.

Al