Re: [lamps] [EXTERNAL] IESG review of draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates-20

[Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mike!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Ounsworth <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 3:06 PM
> To: Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [lamps] IESG review of draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates-
> 20
> 
> Thanks for the detailed meeting notes Roman!
> 
> If I'm reading properly, the outcome is:
> 
> * Add an intro blurb explaining the editorial style.

Yes.  We need a blurb on the editorial style and a sentence that says that another full bis-style update document is coming.

> * Proceed with publication of this document in the short-term.

That's the outcome we're working towards.  We need to the IESG's help there.  Some of these steps would be confidence building measures for them consider changing from  ABSTAINs/DISCUSSes to No Objections or YES ballots.

> * Add a LAMPS milestone to produce a proper bis doc at a later date.

Exactly.  Produce another bullet of the style of "Dec 2021 -- CMP updates sent to IESG for standards track publication"

> * Next IESG telechat is June 30.

Telechats are roughly every two weeks.  The next one is June 16.  However, I pushed it one more meeting to June 30 to give the IESG a lot of time for review.  

-20 will be on that agenda.  However, the WG can perform any minor cleanups that are possible based on the existing IESG feedback.

Regards,
Roman

> ---
> Mike Ounsworth
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Spasm <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Roman Danyliw
> Sent: June 2, 2022 1:47 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [lamps] IESG review of draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates-20
> 
> WARNING: This email originated outside of Entrust.
> DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you trust the sender and know the
> content is safe.
> 
> ___________________________________________________________________
> ___
> Hi!
> 
> draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates was on the IETF telechat today and the outcome
> of the ballot was an insufficient number of positions to pass.   See
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-
> cmp-updates/ballot/__;!!FJ-
> Y8qCqXTj2!Yp56wz4Ie6UthSderEeOsxa7mi6tDyG1jBuEQlG7nSBEAVuV0s7A-
> nuHFWj9Ap-1MIXl-JU7SW62zskjxuEZ$ .  Procedurally, any Proposed Standard
> (PS) status document needs 2/3rds of the IESG (10 of the 14 members) to ballot
> "Yes" or "No Objection" to pass.  Unfortunately, the results we have is that 5
> IESG members have balloted ABSTAIN, which means that irrespective of the
> two ADs clearing their DISCUSS positions, this document can't advance to
> publication.
> 
> The primary concerns of those ABSTAINing appeared to be that the editorial
> style of a large collection of OLD/NEW patches makes the document
> unreadable.  If you recollect, this was the reason why I asked for
> documentation of this editorial choice during the AD Review
> (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/5y
> AA3RADNiqNRwvDe_8GCg3Q-WY/__;!!FJ-
> Y8qCqXTj2!Yp56wz4Ie6UthSderEeOsxa7mi6tDyG1jBuEQlG7nSBEAVuV0s7A-
> nuHFWj9Ap-1MIXl-JU7SW62zhboSPrv$  ). The IESG also questioned why the
> WG couldn't just publish a bis document.  There is a prior history of the IESG
> raising concerns with such an editorial style and ultimately sending it back to
> the WG (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-
> ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update/ballot/__;!!FJ-
> Y8qCqXTj2!Yp56wz4Ie6UthSderEeOsxa7mi6tDyG1jBuEQlG7nSBEAVuV0s7A-
> nuHFWj9Ap-1MIXl-JU7SW62ztna-Rfv$ ).
> 
> With the help of background from Russ and Hendrik, I reminded the IESG of:
> ** the history of  why this document grew to the length that it was, and that
> this patch style approach is not uncommon for PKIX documents
> 
> ** that there are pending PRs in OpenSSL and BouncyCastle to support this
> document (and these communities are waiting for an RFC to accept them)
> 
> ** one of the primary ways in which the PKIX community interacts with CMP is
> via libraries
> 
> The IESG also discussed if we need to put out a statement to better guide
> "patch-style update documents" in the IETF.  I was supportive of this but
> stressed that any such statement should apply to future work.
> 
> The ADs are sympathetic to blocking the work, so we defined the following
> steps to find a way to advance the document.  No guarantees, but these steps
> would provide structure for the ADs to revisit their ballots (and get us closer to
> the needed 10 positions).  These steps included:
> 
> ** Returning the document back for IESG Review on the June 30 telechat
> (reason: certain ADs balloted ABSTAINed and didn't review all of the details of
> the document; with the benefit of this additional WG background described
> above, returning this document gives them more time for review)
> 
> ** Plan and define a formal milestone in the datatracker that set expectations
> on when a CMP bis document would be published (reason: certain ADs would
> feel reassured that the WG has a plan to provide a more readable update
> document via bis and approval of this current document would be a stop-gap
> measure)
> 
> ** Add text into the current draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates which explains why
> this patch style was used and alluding to WG plan for a full bis document
> 
> ** Updating the shepherd write-up for the implementations of this document
> 
> Thanks for the WG's continue work on CMP.  This is an important technology
> for the community.
> 
> Regards,
> Roman
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Spasm mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm__;!
> !FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!Yp56wz4Ie6UthSderEeOsxa7mi6tDyG1jBuEQlG7nSBEAVuV0s7A-
> nuHFWj9Ap-1MIXl-JU7SW62zjqE39C2$
> Any email and files/attachments transmitted with it are confidential and are
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
> addressed. If this message has been sent to you in error, you must not copy,
> distribute or disclose of the information it contains. Please notify Entrust
> immediately and delete the message from your system.