Re: [Lwip] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-lwig-curve-representations-19: (with DISCUSS)

Mohit,

I most definitely apologize if I appeared to make any accusations!  I
do seem to have not kept adequate notes on all my handling of this
document.

I meant rather to bemoan the fact that I have repeated an error that I
have made with at least one other document, an error that resulted in
these very same "change in document status" points being raised.

My apologies,
-Erik

On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 1:17 AM Mohit Sethi M
<mohit.m.sethi@ericsson.com> wrote:
>
> Argh, I find this email very misleading. I did change the status of the draft but the ADs were well aware of this change. Erik Kline in his email on 14th Jan wrote:
>
> Rene,
>
> I'm trying to catch up on all the changes between -12 and -19.  At a minimum, since this has been changed from Informational to Standards Track I think we should have another IETF Last Call.  I'll have a read through the full diff tomorrow afternoon and see if I can figure out what's next.
>
> In my email response I did state that running another last call may not necessarily bring in more reviews as the draft is rather crypto-heavy (and the contents have remained the same). But I left the final decision to the ADs. I had written:
>
> I feel that another last call may not necessarily result in more meaningful reviews. Obviously, as ADs, you have much more experience and I trust your judgement call on this.
>
> My original shepherd writeup noted the conflict between the requested values and the intended status:
>
> The values requested require "Standards Action With Expert Review" however the requested RFC type is Informational. However, Jim Schaad who is one of the experts for the IANA registries has stated in a private email thread that the IANA section of this draft looks correct.
>
>
> Obviously, ADs can forget in the deluge of drafts. But to hint in anyway that this was changed and no one noticed would be grossly incorrect.
>
> --Mohit
>
> On 2/16/21 2:43 AM, Erik Kline wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 6:12 AM Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker
> <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Magnus Westerlund has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-lwig-curve-representations-19: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lwig-curve-representations/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> So this is process violation discuss. This document is up for approval as
> standards track. However, there are no evidence that it was ever IETF last
> called for standards track. I only find evidence for a IETF last call intended
> for informational on 2020-08-25.
>
> I have not reviewed the content of document yet. I would propose that the
> responsible AD pulls this document from this telechat and then performs the
> IETF last call before it gets scheduled again.
>
> Argh, I completely missed that the intended status had been changed on
> draft 14 from the LC (draft 12).
>
>     2020-11-18 14 Mohit Sethi Changing to proposed standard as
> requested by the COSE experts.
>     2020-11-18 14 Mohit Sethi Intended Status changed to Proposed
> Standard from Informational
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lwip mailing list
> Lwip@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip