IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational-02.txt> (IETF Stream Documents Require IETF Rough Consensus) to Best Current Practice

Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> Sun, 26 January 2020 23:04 UTC

Return-Path: <sayrer@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E72D1200E5 for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 15:04:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 zdrcFG51KUlo for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 15:04:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io1-xd41.google.com (mail-io1-xd41.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d41]) (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 024C71200DB for <last-call@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 15:04:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io1-xd41.google.com with SMTP id k24so7980110ioc.4 for <last-call@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 15:04:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=pjIYxPtm/4vPlybX/uCoiba7EMbHp69lk7K6JTnMTN0=; b=OpjBZ1QjM+kbalvtDwip65Oz7ir1rJyYwbMFba4n0yO5L0/vossd45oDXyFLEeQpWd 1Rz13Bh7Z884NB3htY4vK6POd4dMOehSlBeNL749Mzibi9Y5q6FDEcemJIBWx0+jFrn6 TfDBJQZWvVoDmTe1VWSqOvIS1Q+PsxGyiUI9H1yh3lPPCCeH47d+FNdY+YoFKPUfscRe Ra1CpGgRKplbuStk7OU0dBsxZpEkVRTHD3hLd2M4ulIKVIZjsKcxlTyx4EnUtok/qkv0 PE5PX5ypF4/C37yCaQv7Jt6GzKoqRK4wN0lobjUGh1/TKbh/VDV0uQCt2URQ3h7z3v5q Y6xw==
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=pjIYxPtm/4vPlybX/uCoiba7EMbHp69lk7K6JTnMTN0=; b=VR88oBwnJDLsEG6trulKaWQ23ujm/8whRb3hHPOv1iT2C9n+SEHY9RbHTJwPHwNLeq 52MnQe9s7Qk4TG9eQawHwYxZWghufRGx9agQzA7DUSebJRZ8hzRqrrqV7BqkMfwmfke+ akwRUq7LsrWaSgQsoxQglQGSEd4yopSc6/0rGGVxOeLNWByZXujAn0JMQy8ZjmVE9ZRT s8egx5YuqYo51hjUQzXUC8X4w4FPv65e5wGzTxeIKUoS31cI7tUpL2o62OuC8SKs0qAU nPkZkOnbU1A5F7THlj6+3hcI9GCcVPAGhKwrGyXKwa1uXkbUReFR0oeWrFuqMEHQKEIH 9ftQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV5Y/kLmysKVVpzTKRy8XxSgPsOaWKx2+BYzRvYUohiiwoFLEBl PXhwojWPkSsAkI4PmCuxx7xqRnkI2EtfPWpb/T/w6BLxw54=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwvNSyAlCkeIAv2WfITxBUI6FuSStMPHIiGVYDoJt6OBR5WV+n1lWdomPM+oojC2QCUvpToug21g2NUWpO+WeE=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6638:723:: with SMTP id j3mr11563630jad.131.1580079847154; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 15:04:07 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CABcZeBOMVYpEYaEUzYsa0ApDfGtA6oD5P67A40=HQVBN+yTuKQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAChr6Sz7vihWaoeG8H11JzQ5YqrbYLPLneuY3PD4syMYEaKQ4w@mail.gmail.com> <99d34ee9-8ea6-a77f-39fc-f1889a050358@joelhalpern.com> <CAChr6SwHd2=Qf2SSbQeKs1CS_c1UuBqPEtO_x4MmF71iv0zE9Q@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMdonehuZ3re4UnGY2_B6A2sOBqkoE+m4SfBa8N3vYEhg@mail.gmail.com> <CAChr6Sw1LSXj=L2WAu=R1QfBi4UFDXC5Z6EODqwJ6-z9o5Z5vw@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBPBhGZDxnh2p=trL8yHveBiMsy38+-G_7oQu_eR+45d5w@mail.gmail.com> <CAChr6SyNTsz9uZNiN16OHLj6e=Xhcn1A8pr105Of+y_Jw8HSFw@mail.gmail.com> <994c4462-ef24-6d46-3bec-8aa5e14b9f78@joelhalpern.com> <CAChr6Sy80-74g4cgKESwmdn3WSNjU_2XsjkChH9_8-ELnytC_Q@mail.gmail.com> <20200125184550.GF77560@kduck.mit.edu> <CAChr6SzXFPbcPL++gftey9T_nCVBds+Sb1Z4MpkC2GraZCNfKw@mail.gmail.com> <c220d99f-d69a-ede0-630b-2f593412daca@joelhalpern.com> <CAChr6Sy9=1Gewkq-E=+d9sLFrGS0kL33RUNLxvs44tX0czoUCg@mail.gmail.com> <b6b6bc7a-998b-4cd7-3684-18df02c6a537@joelhalpern.com> <238b2086-80cb-4227-947e-aa7bd565e79e@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <238b2086-80cb-4227-947e-aa7bd565e79e@www.fastmail.com>
From: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2020 15:03:53 -0800
Message-ID: <CAChr6SyzoTxJd1eMy+z_xLPhdE7v7UDE4LTop9JjooHkzvGEiQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christopher Wood <caw@heapingbits.net>
Cc: last-call@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000001a8fc059d13022f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/4UAJfgQyvQihoNM83NiXxQwa0YY>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational-02.txt> (IETF Stream Documents Require IETF Rough Consensus) to Best Current Practice
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2020 23:04:10 -0000

On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 12:10 PM Christopher Wood <caw@heapingbits.net>
wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 25, 2020, at 12:30 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> > With regard to citing RFC 5742, I will leave it to the judgment of the
> > document shepherd and AD as to whether they believe that is called for.
> > It seems more distracting than useful to me, but I will act as they
> direct.
>
> For the reason above, I do not think citing RFC 5742 is necessary.
>

There are 4 cases that could happen now:

Document Actions (WG) [ No IETF Last Call Issued ]
Document Actions (WG) [ Last Call Issued, No Consensus ]
Document Actions (Individual to AD) [ No IETF Last Call Issued ]
Document Actions (Individual to AD) [ Last Call Issued, No Consensus ]

For each of these cases, there will be some interaction with RFC 5742 if
the document is to be published on another stream (the alternative proposed
in the draft).

Whether or not this draft is edited, it would be helpful to know what
people think is going to happen to these cases. No publication at all? Or
publication with one of the IESG messages in 5742? I looked for some
Informational and Experimental documents languishing in the IESG queue,
since the authors don't seem comfortable discussing the concrete examples
they are reacting to.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-seantek-ldap-pkcs9/  (676 days ago)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gutmann-scep/ (153 days ago)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis/  (318 days
ago)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidrops-lta-use-cases/   (269
days ago)

IESG reviews that result in case #4 or #5 from RFC 5742 would likely lead
to no publication at all. As others have pointed out, the RFC Editor could
theoretically ignore this, but that doesn't seem likely in today's
environment.

It's not clear if this proposal intends to leave some documents unpublished
(maybe that is ok, but it should be clear).

thanks,
Rob

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email