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

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

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.