Re: [sidr] WG acceptance call for draft-ymbk-rpki-grandparenting

["Murphy, Sandra" <[e-mail]>]

>the author of the document did not engage in the
>discussion

As Yakov was fond of saying, "send text".  Authors of wg drafts are supposed to represent consensus.   

>nor has the author done any work to the document to address any
>of the concerns raised.

Ironically, there was a recent discussion on the wgchairs list about ensuring that a recently adopted draft was submitted with NO changes from its individual draft form.

Calls for adoption are not calls for acceptance of the draft content, just a call to work on the topic.  Certainly the discussion demonstrated that people thought this was important.

>So then, any document that comes before the working group shall be
>accepted?

A topic that generates a fire storm of discussion has a good chance.  Nothing like actively working on a topic to demonstrate interest in working on the topic.

--Sandy
________________________________________
From: Andy Newton [[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 6:49 AM
To: Christopher Morrow
Cc: Murphy, Sandra; Alexey Melnikov; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [sidr] WG acceptance call for draft-ymbk-rpki-grandparenting

On 11/8/12 12:09 AM, "Christopher Morrow" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Andy Newton <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> On 10/12/12 10:53 AM, "Christopher Morrow" <[e-mail]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I think if, in the end, the wg decides to abandon the work that's also
>>>fine, but we should have a more structured chat about the topic, that
>>>happens around a draft.
>>
>>
>> As the person who specifically asked of the chairs that the draft
>>authors
>> be allowed to address the issues raised, I'd like specifics on this more
>> structured chat. I ask because it is not apparent that the normal means
>>of
>
>I hope (and I think co-chairs hope) that the authors and commentors
>can discuss what the problem attempting to be documented is, add the
>right words to the document and then we can all decide if documenting
>something in an informational RFC that describes a capability that
>exists in the system today (and the downsides of executing that
>capability) is appropriate.
>
>it'd be nice, really, to know at the end if there is a reason to NOT
>publish something along those lines as well, and if the wg things not
>publishing is best, then we'll just wander off and leave the kitten by
>the lake on it's own.

As I stated before, the author of the document did not engage in the
discussion nor has the author done any work to the document to address any
of the concerns raised.

So I'll ask again, what specifically do you, the chairs, intend to do to
facilitate a more "structured" discussion?

>
>> IETF discussion were attempted. Of the 38 messages regarding the draft
>> directly, the draft author only responded 3 times, nor did the author
>> engage in any of the side discussions. And the draft submitted as a
>> working group document addresses NONE of the issues raised (it is just a
>> re-spin with the dates and file name changed). If normal IETF discourse
>>is
>
>that's fine though, right? the author and commentors can work out the
>details.

No, it is not fine as the author has not engaged in the discussion.

>
>> being set aside especially when it was not fully engaged, we should also
>> be given the exception criteria under which this scenario qualifies when
>> others do not.
>
>don't think there's anything special going on, there was a bunch of
>discussion, keep on discussing and if this ends up being publishable
>'ok', if not 'ok'.
>
>Some of the discussion was along the lines of 'you shouldn't do this
>because its bad' or 'doing this circumvents the point of the
>system'... that's also fine to document. the system seems to have the
>capabilities, it'd be nice to know when not to pull the trigger (while
>aimed at foot) and when TO pull trigger (downrange is clear).
>

So then, any document that comes before the working group shall be
accepted? Is that the new criteria?

-andy