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

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

Hi Warren,

I am on travel today, but I expect to read this today or Friday. Can you
give me until Saturday?

Thanks,
-Ekr


On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:07 AM, Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> wrote:

> EKR,
> I'm planning on clicking the "This document is approved" button before
> the IETF101 meeting unless I hear a clear signal that there is
> something that you *cannot* live with.
>
> Thank you again for your Abstain and all of your comments on the document,
> W
>
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 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/974db6cb13
> faecbf5b1704c1da580b320843d0b3)
> > or on the IETF site
> > (https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-mm-wg-effect-encryp
> t-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
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>