Re: [RTG-DIR] [Rfced-future] [EXTERNAL] Re: RTG-DIR Last Call review of draft-rsalz-2028bis-05

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Yes you're right.  My apologies.

Eliot

On 01.03.22 17:35, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:
>
> Eliot,
>
> Lots of thanks for your response to my review.
>
> Unfortunately, the draft that I have reviewed 
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-rsalz-2028bis-05> does 
> not contain Section 3.2.1, does not mention “continuous consultations” 
> and only mentions RSAB once (in Section 3.5) in a different context.
>
> And in any case the role of Contributors in the IETF Standards Process 
> is not, AFAIK, related to consultations.
>
> Rather, they are REQUIRED to report any known and undeclared IPR (or 
> explicitly confirm lack thereof) during IRP Calls set up by the WG 
> Chairs  at wo important stages of the process:
>
>   * Adoption of the draft by a WG  as a WG document
>   * The WG Last Call.
>
> They are also prevented from being selected as the Area Directorate 
> reviewers of the documents that list them as Contributors (at least in 
> the Routing Area Directorate).
>
> Regards,
>
> Sasha
>
> Office: [phone]
>
> Cell:      [phone]
>
> Email: [e-mail]
>
> *From:* Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Monday, February 28, 2022 10:02 PM
> *To:* Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]>; 
> [e-mail]; Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Rfced-future] RTG-DIR Last Call review of 
> draft-rsalz-2028bis-05
>
> Hi Sasha,
>
> On 28.02.22 16:00, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:
>
>     Hello,
>
>     I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this
>     draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or
>     routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and
>     IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the
>     review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more
>     information about the Routing Directorate, please see
>     ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
>     <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir>
>
>     Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing
>     ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any
>     other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to
>     resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.
>
>     Document: draft-rsalz-2028bis-05
>     Reviewer: Alexander (|”Sasha”) Vainshtein
>     Review Date: 28-Feb-22
>     IETF LC End Date: 07-Mar-22
>     Intended Status: Nest Current Practice
>
>     *Summary:*
>
>     I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should
>     be resolved before publication.
>
>     *Comments**:*
>
>     The draft describes entities involved in the IETF standards
>     process. It is easy to read.
>
>     To the best of my understanding its purpose is alignment with the
>     current structure of the Internet Society and its affiliated
>     organizations (IETF, IANA, RFC Production center (nee RFC Editor)
>     etc.  The previous document describing these entities has been
>     published as RFC 2028 in 1996.
>
>     The author of the draft and I have exchanged a few emails
>     regarding my concerns. We did not reach the agreement, but in any
>     case I would like to than the author for responsiveness and
>     cooperation.
>
>     *Major Issues*: None found
>
>     *Minor Issues*:
>
>     These days it is quite common in the IETF process to differentiate
>     between document Authors and Contributors, especially when  many
>     persons have been actively involved with development of the
>     technical aspects of the document.  The number of Authors is
>     usually limited to no more than 5, and their names appear on the
>     title page of the document, while Contributors (if any) are only
>     listed in a dedicated section within the document.
>
>     At the same time the Contributors have a well-defined role in the
>     process, e.g. they must report about any non-disclosed IPR related
>     to the document (or lack of any such IPR) both during adoption of
>     the document as a WG document and also during the WG Last Call.
>
>     The draft mentioned Editors and Authors of the document (and
>     explains that these terms are interchangeable), but it does not
>     mention Contributors at all.
>
>     I have raised this issue with the author of the draft, and IMHO we
>     have “agreed to disagree” on this point.
>
> I think you are talking about Section 3.2.1, which in part reads:
>
>         This process is intended to be one of continuous consultation.  RSAB
>
>         members should consult with their constituent stakeholders (e.g.,
>
>         authors, editors, tool developers, and consumers of RFCs) on an
>
>         ongoing basis, so that when the time comes to consider the approval
>
>         of a proposal, there should be no surprises.
>
> I don't think you should worry about whether contributors are listed 
> at this time.  The IESG in particular tends to cast a wide net on such 
> consultations.  But if Lars thinks that won't be the case here, we 
> should consider adding the word “contributors” above, as I don't think 
> it hurts anyone to do so.
>
> Eliot
>
>
> Notice: This e-mail together with any attachments may contain 
> information of Ribbon Communications Inc. and its Affiliates that is 
> confidential and/or proprietary for the sole use of the intended 
> recipient. Any review, disclosure, reliance or distribution by others 
> or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If 
> you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender 
> immediately and then delete all copies, including any attachments.
>