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

Thanks Adrian. (And Brian.)
Alissa, do you think we should change the note to simply remove all of 
section 4?
I can make the other suggested changes.

Yours,
Joel

On 1/24/2020 4:51 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for this document. I think it is a fine idea to make this small
> change official even if (or perhaps particularly because) it describes what
> the IESG has been doing for some time.
> 
> However, I think the document needs some work before it can be published.
> 
> 1. The document is framed as a proposal. That was great for opening the
> discussion, but when published as an RFC it needs to be phrased as a clear
> statement of practice. Thus, you need to reword it accordingly. That's a
> fairly easy change, but hits several places in the document.
> 
> 2. The Introduction usefully sets out what 2026 requires. However, you also
> need to say what this document does. I think it is conventional to make the
> "updates" statement in the Introduction and to state what the update is:
> such as, "This document updates [RCF2026] by stating rules for establishing
> IETF consensus before the publication of any RFC on the IETF Stream."
> There are also a couple of nits in the text you have:
> a. "it should be remembered that this RFC predates" Since the draft will
> (hopefully) be published as an RFC, the term "this RFC" will be
> misinterpreted as meaning "this document". I think you can fix that as
> "...remembered that that RFC..."
> b. "As a consequence, it is currently permitted for the IETF to approve".
> Once this document is published as an RFC your statement will be wrong and
> confusing. Furthermore, I think you mean IESG not IETF. Maybe you fix this
> as "As a consequence, RFC 2026 permitted the IESG to approve"
> 
> 3. Section 4 is a bit of discussion that no-doubt helped form this document.
> But I wonder whether you want this discussion to remain. You have already
> decided that the final paragraph should be removed. Could you actually
> remove the whole section without loss to the document?
> If you decide to keep Section 4, it will need some work.
> The first sentence of the first paragraph will not age well with the
> publication of this document as an RFC. Maybe it could be rewritten as:
>     The procedures defined in [RFC2026] permit the publication of
>     some RFCs in the IETF stream without first establishing IETF
>     consensus.
> Additionally, while you are correct as to the letter of the 2007 IESG
> statement, I hope you'll agree that the intent of that statement in having
> IETF-wide review was that consensus would be reached. Finally, the
> referenced IESG statement does not say that "no document will be issued
> without first conducting an IETF Last Call", it talks only about "Individual
> Submissions". The fact that the IESG now issues last calls on all IETF
> Stream documents is an established behaviour, but is not (I think)
> documented - IIRC, an IESG just decided to do it. That could all mean some
> substantial clean-up and leads me to think that it is easier to drop the
> rest of the text in the paragraph.
> 
> 4. You should decide whether to use "stream" or "Stream" and be consistent.
> 
> Thanks for the work,
> Adrian
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of The IESG
> Sent: 24 January 2020 18:09
> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
> Cc: draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational@ietf.org
> Subject: Last Call:
> <draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational-02.txt> (IETF Stream
> Documents Require IETF Rough Consensus) to Best Current Practice
> 
> 
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
> following document: - 'IETF Stream Documents Require IETF Rough Consensus'
>    <draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational-02.txt> as Best Current
>    Practice
> 
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
> comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2020-02-21. Exceptionally, comments may
> be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning
> of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> 
> Abstract
> 
> 
>     This document proposes that the IETF never publish any IETF stream
>     RFCs without IETF rough consensus.  This updates RFC 2026.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The file can be obtained via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformat
> ional/
> 
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformat
> ional/ballot/
> 
> 
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> IETF-Announce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
> 