Re: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jeff!

Thanks for the analysis of the situation.  

The top line message I'm getting from your response is that draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo not being in scope of the BFD charter is not in dispute, the question is what to do to move forward.

More inline ...

________________________________________
From: Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2024 10:24 AM
To: Roman Danyliw
Cc: The IESG; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Warning: External Sender - do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.


Roman,

On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 06:24:10AM -0700, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> (For the BFD WG chairs and responsible AD) This document does not appear to be
> in scope of the charter (version -08).  The current charter identifies 7
> specific topics (numbers 1, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, 4, and 5), none of which appear to
> cover this document.

We also completed work on a YANG module, approved by the IESG, that wasn't
in charter.

[Roman] If I understand correctly, you are referencing RFC9127 and RFC9314.

[Roman] I'm not sure how recognizing that these documents are out of scope at this late date provides cover to future out-of-scope documents now that we have recognized the issue.

BFD work is being done outside of the BFD working group by various protocol
extensions.  Are those drafts chartered?

[Roman] I'm not familiar with the work you are referencing.  Are these BFD related I-Ds in other WGs?

More directly, it's known that charters are stale.  Is this *really* the
point you want to use as a DISCUSS 

[Roman] See below.

and will an audit of things you've
approved show that you've consistently applied that evaluation criteria?

[Roman] Please do.  I welcome an audit of my balloting record and any resulting feedback.  I hope it can improve my reviews -- there is always room for improvement on my part.

I suggest you reconsider the position filed as a COMMENT.

[Roman] Thank you. On reflection, I am still unpersuaded by the argument that because the IESG (me included in 2022 when I was SEC AD) missed that the YANG documents were not in scope for the charter and still approved them, that we should now ignore the charter again.  Recognizing that flexibility (of some kind) is sometimes needed, I might be swayed if this was the last document to finish before the WG was going to close, or perhaps there were some pressing circumstances that required immediate document processing.

[Roman] However, were not dealing with a single document and the WG is not closing.  It is presumptive of me as they have not yet come up for IESG Review, but we are going to face this same out-of-scope discussion with two more BFD WG documents: draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets (in AD Review) and draft-ietf-bfd-stability (in WGLC).  It appears to me that we need a revised charter to handle at least three already adopted WG documents.  This isn't an isolated incident.

[Roman] With little visibility into the BFD ecosystem, are there pressing circumstances that require us to not follow customary process and immediate processing is required?  I ask because this document is already 4 years in the making and will spend at least a number of weeks in the RFC Editor queue.  

Regards,
Roman