Re: [OPSAWG] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 3:28 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF
<spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, Benoit,
>
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote:
>>
>> The way I see it, we're going to fix comments forever.
>
>
> Right. But my concern was that the text that we're reading for an up/down
> vote can change after we read it, so I should be tracking the proposed text
> changes.

[ Updating in the middle of the thread as this seems the logical entry point ]

... so, we are not updating the current version (we wanted 7 days for
people to read it), and so will be (I believe) balloting on that --
but, just like any other document we ballot on, the RAD will pay
attention to comments received and "Do the right thing".

I believe that EKRs comments are helpful, and Kathleen hopes to
address / incorporate them before the call. I will be putting both the
current (being balloted on) and updated version in GitHub (for a
friendly web enabled diff) so that people can see what the final
version will actually look like.
So, I guess we are formally balloting (unless the DISCUSS is cleared)
on the text as written (-22), but with an understanding that the AD
will make it look like the version in GitHub before taking off the
Approved, Revised ID needed / AD follow-up flag.

Confused yet? :-P

>
> That doesn't seem up/down. It seems like every other draft I've balloted on
> as an AD :-)
>

Indeed.
W

> Spencer
>
>>
>> And we need to resolve this one before the current ADs step down.
>>
>> Regards, Benoit
>>
>> This may not be my week, when it comes to comprehension. At least, I'm 0
>> for 2 so far today.
>>
>> Are we still tuning text in this draft?
>>
>> https://www.ietf.org/standards/process/iesg-ballots/ says that the
>> alternate balloting procedure is an up/down vote - we either agree to
>> publish, or agree to send a document off for rework.
>>
>> If we're still resolving comments, one can imagine that we'd get to a
>> one-Discuss situation, or even no Discusses, and wouldn't be doing an
>> Alternate Ballot on Thursday.
>>
>> I don't object to resolving comments (actually, I find that lovely), but I
>> don't know what we're doing.
>>
>> I've never seen the alternate balloting procedure executed (either as IESG
>> scribe or as an IESG member), so maybe I don't get it, and other people have
>> different expectations.
>>
>> Spencer
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OPSAWG mailing list
>> OPSAWG@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf