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

Hi Joel,

> On Jan 24, 2020, at 5:50 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Adrian. (And Brian.)
> Alissa, do you think we should change the note to simply remove all of section 4?

I think it’s better kept in the document so future readers can understand the context.

Thanks,
Alissa

> 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
> 
> -- 
> last-call mailing list
> last-call@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call