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

["Black, David" <[e-mail]>]

> 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.)

Ok, two notes to the RFC Editor work for me (one note to revise the rtcweb-qos draft, plus a second note to delete section 12 from the le-phb draft after the rtcweb-qos draft is revised).

What would not work for me would be to pull the rtcweb-qos draft back into TSVWG and have the WG make the changes.   Section 12 of the le-phb draft has sufficient information for the RFC Editor to do what needs to be done to the rtcweb-qos draft, and that section of the le-phb draft has WG consensus.

Thanks, --David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 2:11 PM
> To: Black, David
> Cc: Spencer Dawkins at IETF; The IESG; [e-mail]; tsvwg-chairs; draft-
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-09: (with
> DISCUSS)
> 
> 
> 
> > 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.)
> 
> >
> > 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; draft-ietf-tsvwg-
> [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 ...