Re: [secdir] review of draft-crocker-id-adoption-05

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net> Fri, 17 January 2014 18:01 UTC

Return-Path: <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6B411AD939; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 10:01:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZU071WpRiR95; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 10:01:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E2571AC421; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 10:01:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-9-215.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.9.215]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s0HI0qEo027179 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 17 Jan 2014 10:00:56 -0800
Message-ID: <52D96FCB.5010002@bbiw.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 10:00:43 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Klaas Wierenga (kwiereng)" <kwiereng@cisco.com>, "<adrian@olddog.co.uk>" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
References: <8D28F665-CDF8-4FAA-869E-CA5EF6E673D2@cisco.com> <52D950F9.7050909@bbiw.net>, <05a201cf13a3$7a2e10b0$6e8a3210$@olddog.co.uk> <C1C3F240-7C57-4D90-8C1D-4D068409A73E@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C1C3F240-7C57-4D90-8C1D-4D068409A73E@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.67]); Fri, 17 Jan 2014 10:00:56 -0800 (PST)
Cc: "draft-crocker-id-adoption.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-crocker-id-adoption.all@tools.ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] review of draft-crocker-id-adoption-05
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 18:01:14 -0000

On 1/17/2014 9:46 AM, Klaas Wierenga (kwiereng) wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> On 17 jan. 2014, at 17:45, "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>;
>> wrote: "Handling of Internet Drafts by IETF Working Groups"
>
> I like the third


me too.


>>
>>>> - Since this is a document that aims to document the actual way
>>>> the WG drafts are handled I wonder whether you should mention
>>>> that reality is not always what is put on paper.
...
>>> I thought there were enough qualifiers in the document, to this
>>> point. So please suggest specific addition/changes.  Sometimes
...
>> While I would welcome suggestions of text on this point I am less
>> that easy-going about documenting worst current practice. In fact,
>> I think I take issue with what Klaas says: it may well be that
>> document editors/authors have strong influence on the text that is
>> generated, but if the WG is being denied the opportunity to review
>> and object to the text (possibly after a revision of the I-D has
>> been posted), then the WG is not being run well. So I am happy
>> with the text as it stands.
>
> I think you misunderstand what I tried to say, I am in no way
> advocating this, I am stating behavior that I observe. What I am
> proposing text along the lines of "authors and/or editors may feel
> like that they "own" the document and strongly influence the final
> text. The WG chair will have to make sure that WG consensus is
> properly reflected"

I'm confused.  I would have thought that the existing paragraph:

1.2 Working Group Authority and Consensus
...
At times, a document author/editor can appear to have considerable 
authority over content, but this is (merely) for efficiency. That is, 
the chairs can permit authors and editors to proceed with an implied 
(default) working group agreement, as long as the working group is 
comfortable with that mode...

and all of Section 3, deal with this concern sufficiently.



>>>> 2.1:
...
>>> What is the specific change you want?
>>
>> [KW] between bullit 2 and 3 add: [KW] [KW] - verify that the draft
>> submitters are aware that they transfer [KW]    change control for
>> the document to the WG (and the IETF)
>>
>> Works for me, but maybe... - remind the draft submitters that they
>> transfer change control for the document to the WG (and the IETF)
>
> Yes, this non-native speaker humbly bows his head

added.



d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net