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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

> 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.

+1. This is a clerical problem, there was clear WG consensus.

Regards
   Brian

On 2019-02-21 08:37, Black, David wrote:
>> 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 ...
>