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

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

Thanks for the two suggestions, Alissa.

Done and Done in the working version of the text.

Al

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, December 13, 2019 5:19 AM
> To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>; IESG <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-ippm-
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-
> 22: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Hi Al,
> 
> I have a couple of comments in-line on this text:
> 
> > 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,
> 
> IANA has no role in evaluating the metrics against the Section 5 criteria,
> so I think they should be dropped from this sentence.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> For the last sentence I would suggest “Once evidence exists that the
> Performance Metric meets the criteria in section 5, the proposed
> Performance Metrics Registry entry SHOULD be submitted … .” The people who
> write the RFC need not be the same people who later submit the metric to
> the registry.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
> 
> > On Dec 6, 2019, at 1:53 PM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >