Re: [tsvwg] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-09: (with DISCUSS)

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Dear All,

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 2:42 PM Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 1:12 PM Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 20, 2019, at 12:56 PM, Black, David <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > >> Section 12 appears to be an update to draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos,
>> which is
>> > >> currently in the RFC Editor queue in the MISSREF state. It's not
>> clear to me
>> > >> what the intent of this section is, but if the idea is to formally
>> update a
>> > >> _draft_, then please do not do that. The right way to proceed would
>> be to pull
>> > >> draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos from the RFC editor queue and make the
>> changes
>> > >there.
>> > >
>> > >That would be fine with me. Is it fine with TSVWG?
>> >
>> > I believe that TSVWG cares much more about the result than the means
>> via which it is achieved.  It was important to include Section 12 in the
>> le-phb draft in order to obtain WG consensus on the changes contained
>> therein.
>> >
>> > That said, I think I see a problem with Ben’s brief summary – a literal
>> reading suggests a request to the RFC Editor to modify a draft in the RFC
>> editor queue (rtcweb-qos) based on another draft (le-phb) that the IESG has
>> not (yet) approved, something that the RFC Editor ought to decline to do.
>>
>> Oh, no, I didn’t mean that at all. I suspect the implied subject in my
>> sentence starting with “The right way…” was unclear. :-)
>>
>> >  That said, I suspect that this literal reading is not exactly what Ben
>> had in mind, let me suggest a couple of alternate steps that are more
>> likely to work:
>>
>> >
>> >       • The IESG instructs the RFC Editor not to publish the rtcweb-qos
>> draft (or otherwise ensures that outcome) until IESG consideration of the
>> le-phb draft is concluded.  No overt IESG action may be needed due to the
>> current state of cluster C238 at the RFC Editor ;-).
>> >       • The IESG approval of the le-phb includes an RFC Editor Note
>> telling the RFC Editor to treat Section 12 of the le-phb draft as
>> instructions to the RFC Editor about the rtcweb-qos draft, and requesting
>> the RFC editor to make those text changes to the rtcweb-qos draft, add a
>> normative reference to the le-phb draft (which is required by the text
>> changes to be made) and then remove Section 12 of the le-phb draft prior to
>> its RFC publication.
>>
>> I’m mostly okay with any approach Spencer wants to take. But I  was
>> thinking more along the former lines. While an RFC editor note would be a
>> perfectly fine way to execute the changes to rtcweb-qos, I think it would
>> need to be a note attached to that draft, not this one. (Using a note to
>> delete section 12 from this draft would be fine.)
>>
>
> I'm almost positive that asking the RFC Editor what they want to see, is
> the shortest way out of this cul-de-sac :-)
>
> Let me drop them a note now.
>
> Spencer
>

After consulting with Heather and with Sandy, I have added this RFC Editor
note:

RFC Editor Note

   Because this draft formally updates draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos,
   which is approved but waiting in the MISSREF state, we ask the RFC
Editor
   to take the following actions:

   Please make the changes described in Section 12 of this draft to
   draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos.

   Please replace [RFCXXXX] in the updated text with the RFC number
   assigned to this draft.

   Please add [RFCXXXX] (with the RFC number assigned to this draft) as
   a normative reference in draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos.

   Please remove Section 12 from this draft (because all those changes
   have already been applied).

If this looks right, Ben, could you clear your Discuss?

Thanks,

Spencer