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 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


> > This also avoids having to submit a revision of the le-phb draft in
> short order, as the desired outcome is obtained primarily via the RFC
> Editor Note portion of the IESG’s protocol action announcement.
> >
> > Will this course of action work for the IESG?
> >
> > Thanks, --David
> >
> > From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 1:19 PM
> > To: Ben Campbell
> > Cc: The IESG; [e-mail]; Black, David; tsvwg-chairs;
> [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-09: (with
> DISCUSS)
> >
> > [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
> >
> > Dear TSVWG Chairs,
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 11:45 AM Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-09: Discuss
> >
> > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> > introductory paragraph, however.)
> >
> >
> > Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > DISCUSS:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Thanks for this effort. The draft appears to be in good shape overall; I
> just
> > have one process point I would like to DISCUSS before approval:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > The UPDATES relationship is intended for updating RFCs, which are
> otherwise
> > immutable. Drafts, even post-IESG approval and in the RFC editor queue
> can
> > still be changed. Making readers figure out the update between two
> different
> > RFCs when there is an option to just fix the draft would be a disservice
> to
> > readers.
> >
> > That would be fine with me. Is it fine with TSVWG?
> >
> > All - please note that resolving this question Really Quick would be
> awesome, because there is only one more telechat after the one tomorrow,
> and as of Wednesday of IETF 104, the ballots for draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb
> from outgoing ADs "go away", including my Yes ballot ...
> >
> > Spencer, who is wondering how many of the incoming ADs are familiar with
> cluster C238 in the RFC Editor queue ...
>
>