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

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:45 AM, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 3:28 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > Hi, Benoit,
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>
>> > 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
>
>
> Hi Warren,
>
> Thanks for this note.
>
> It's too bad that we aren't able to see the proposed revisions at this
> point, but I appreciate your commitment to working through the
> remaining issues, and I think we should be able to reach a
> satisfactory resolution.

I appreciate your Abstain, but, as mentioned, I'm committed to making
sure that the right thing happens here - a new version of the document
(-24) was posted on Friday; I believe that it is now acceptable, and
Paul (the document shepherd) also kindly looked through your comments
and the changes and thinks it's OK.

I'm sure that you are tired of this by now, but please take a look at
the diffs (stuffed in GitHub
(https://github.com/wkumari/effect-encrypt/commit/974db6cb13faecbf5b1704c1da580b320843d0b3)
or on the IETF site
(https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-22&url2=draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-24)
and let mw know if the document is something you can live with...

W


>  In the interest of not forcing everyone to
> read the document by tomorrow, I'm going to change my ballot to
> Abstain.
>
> Best,
> -Ekr
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > 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
>> >> [e-mail]
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > OPSAWG mailing list
>> > [e-mail]
>> > 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
>
>



-- 
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