RE: [ippm] [OPSAWG] TSVWG WGLC: draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-08, closes 23 October 2019

["MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ian, Gorry and Colin,

please see a few hard-earned comments below, marked [acm],

Al

From: ippm [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Ian Swett
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2019 8:48 PM
To: Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; IETF IPPM WG ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>; Peter Gutmann <[e-mail]>; tsvwg-chairs <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [ippm] [OPSAWG] TSVWG WGLC: draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-08, closes 23 October 2019

I think it's ok to publish a document with the stated goals, but I think this needs to be done with great care and the current document implies some value judgements and implications I don't think are fully justified by the document.  A 3rd author with a slightly different perspective may help achieve the right balance.
[acm]
It’s a difficult but worthwhile thing to achieve NPOV on a controversial topic.

IMO, this can be approached by asking all commenters to provide text for the memo
on the topic of interest, which will reveal their value judgements and opinions
for the reviewing community. Editing proceeds by taking many POV into account,
in the form of text contributions revised many times, not opinion only.

<snip lots of previous messages>
>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 5:44 PM Peter Gutmann
>> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
>>
>>     I actually think it's a pretty good summary, and delivers exactly
>> what's
>>     promised in the title.  OTOH I can also see that it's going to get
>>     bikeshedded
>>     to death, and will probably never be editable into a form where
>>     people won't
>>     complain about it no matter how many changes are made.
>> Alternatively, it'll
>>     end up watered down to a point where no-one can complain any more
>>     but it won't
>>     say anything terribly useful by then.
>>
>>     Perhaps it could be published as is with a comment that it
>>     represents the
>>     opinions of the authors?  Although given that it's Informational
>> and not
>>     Standards-track or a BCP, that should be a given anyway.
>>
>>
>> Actually, no. Most IETF documents, even informational ones, bear a
>> statement that they have IETF Consensus.
>>
>> See: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5741#section-3.2.1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc5741-23section-2D3.2.1&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=T5LgsMBzFOs4KRdiWIxX5pZQ7xbWAXguLkH3gX1DSrg&s=eHy4w8lVF3_5RVNdiWQacTXxIH9Qu1CQ0UQ6bD7yR0M&e=>
>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5741#section-3..2.1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc5741-23section-2D3..2.1&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=T5LgsMBzFOs4KRdiWIxX5pZQ7xbWAXguLkH3gX1DSrg&s=2njzfTabCITEFOP4yCl2iIYxUCu0gutlNauGYi81O9A&e=>>
>>
>> -Ekr
>>
>>
>>     Peter.
[acm] Actually, this is the relevant classification:

4.2.2 Informational

An "Informational" specification is published for the general information of the Internet community, and does not represent an Internet community consensus or recommendation.
From https://ietf.org/standards/process/informational-vs-experimental/
Choosing between Informational and Experimental Status
This document reproduces the rules for classifying documents as Informational and Experimental from RFC 2026, and amplifies those rules with guidelines relevant to ongoing IESG evaluations. It is not intended to change any of the underlying principles.
and it’s a déjà vu moment for me.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OPSAWG mailing list
>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_opsawg&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=T5LgsMBzFOs4KRdiWIxX5pZQ7xbWAXguLkH3gX1DSrg&s=LFPzdVpELMweE5JzhSlf-MCi-1_TfUGwvjXeSB1OT84&e=>
>>