Re: [netconf] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-netconf-https-notif-14: (with DISCUSS)

[Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,

> On Jan 29, 2024, at 12:00 PM, John Scudder via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-netconf-https-notif-14: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-https-notif/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thanks for this update. Since I already balloted No Objection on version 13,
> I’ve only reviewed the changes. They look fine, except one, on which I’m
> balloting DISCUSS. Be not afraid, this is the world’s easiest DISCUSS, and it
> comes packaged with a fix I think you will like.
> 
> Version 14 says: “The update policy is “Specification Required”. Updates do not
> require an expert review by a Designated Expert.” This was changed from version
> 13, which said, “The update policy is “RFC Required”. Updates do not require an
> expert review by a Designated Expert.” I presume it was changed as a result of
> Murray’s DISCUSS questioning the “do not require an expert review” sentence and
> suggesting the use of Specification Required.
> 
> I agree with Murray’s questioning of that sentence, but I’m afraid his fix has
> made things worse, not better. That’s the bad news, the good news is the
> correct fix is trivially easy. In my view, the correct fix is to revert to the
> version 13 policy, but completely delete the “do not require” sentence. That is,
> 
> OLD (version 14):
>   The update policy is “Specification Required”.  Updates do not
>   require an expert review by a Designated Expert.
> 
> NEW:
>   The registration policy is “RFC Required”.

Will make the change in the next version I post.

Thanks.

> 
> I’ve discussed this with Murray and he agrees in broad strokes.
> 
> A little more background: the problem with shifting to Specification Required
> is that it definitionally requires use of an expert, you can’t disclaim it per
> my reading of RFC 8126 Section 4.6:
> 
>   For the Specification Required policy, review and approval by a
>   designated expert (see Section 5) is required [...]
> 
> There is no “unless” clause. No DE, no SR. Besides that, it’s not what you
> want! (I think. More below.)
> 
> On the other hand, “RFC Required” (Section 4.7) doesn’t require expert review
> to begin with, so it’s redundant to say one isn’t required. Ergo, since this
> seems to be the policy you really want (demonstrated by the “reference” field
> definition in your template), simplify and stick with it! Do note that “RFC
> Required” is a more stringent policy than some, since as you know, it isn’t
> trivial to publish an RFC. But I’m assuming you knew that and chose your words
> deliberately.
> 
> (In my NEW text I also changed “update policy” to “registration policy” since
> that’s the RFC 8126 lingo.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


Mahesh Jethanandani
[e-mail]