Re: [Raw] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-raw-ldacs-10: (with DISCUSS)

[John Scudder <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Alvaro.

I’m a little unclear as to your reasoning, let me see if I have it right:

1. You’re making the assertion that it’s not possible for the IETF to “reach rough consensus on a document that describes someone else's technology”. As I understand it, you’re not citing an authority for this — you just think it’s self-evident, like the statement “rain doesn’t fall up”. 

2. Following from the previous premise, you point out that if that’s the case, RFC 8789 says we can’t advance the document.

So the discussion we (the IESG) need to have is whether #1 is true. If there were some authority that said as much, that would make the argument open-and-shut, but if there’s not (and I’m not aware of one), it may come down to a matter of opinion, which isn’t very satisfying. 

In any case we agree that the document should be published in some stream.

Thanks,

—John

> On Apr 18, 2022, at 11:33 AM, Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-raw-ldacs-10: 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!XwKY_jfrpG5svnN1jiQ4u_aggXi4Lwk0Go_0oBNMG5XuDHnDkQKcbAPjGUZvIA$
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-raw-ldacs/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!XwKY_jfrpG5svnN1jiQ4u_aggXi4Lwk0Go_0oBNMG5XuDHnDkQKcbAM0naAhvA$
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> [Authors:  Thank you for the work!  There's no action required from you.  My
> opinion below is to be discussed with the IESG.]
> 
> 
> I found this document very informative, and there is value in publishing it as
> an RFC.  However, I don't believe it can pass the rough consensus bar set by
> rfc8789 to become an IETF Stream RFC.
> 
> As mentioned by the Shepherd, this document is a "description by matter
> specialists of an externally-defined link-layer".  The technology described is
> an overview of work done elsewhere.  There was no discussion of the content on
> the mailing list, which shows only two messages from non-authors: one asking
> for more information; the reply was a pointer to the LDACS external
> specification [1] -- the other was the single WGLC reply from the document
> shepherd [2].
> 
> I want to discuss this question with the IESG:  Can the IETF reach rough
> consensus on a document that describes someone else's technology?  This
> document is akin to many others that have been published through the ISE as,
> for example, a vendor's implementation of a specific protocol.
> 
> My opinion is that documents that describe someone else's technology cannot be
> published as IETF RFCs given the requirement in rfc8789.
> 
> 
> [1] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/raw/iyext4Ub8MgUjNYYPE7XOPpq1Y0__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!XwKY_jfrpG5svnN1jiQ4u_aggXi4Lwk0Go_0oBNMG5XuDHnDkQKcbAO5FpQ62A$
> [2] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/raw/L-ByflWTn_3vcGC8NNfMO-blkJU__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!XwKY_jfrpG5svnN1jiQ4u_aggXi4Lwk0Go_0oBNMG5XuDHnDkQKcbAOCzEgDOw$
> 
> 
> 
> 
>