At 2:23 PM -0800 3/6/08, Cullen Jennings wrote:
>Part of the reason I replied so quickly on this thread is that I
>think I currently have two discuss that do not meet the discuss
>criteria (this being one of them the other being on Lost). Totally
>fair to pick on me here. Both were entered as, excuse the pun, fairly
>fluffy comments because I believe fully stating each point by point
>things would have actually make it significantly harder for the
>editor of the documents to find a good solution. In both cases I
>believe the editor pretty much understands the issue and if I get
>requests to please rewrite to be a reasonable discuss, I'm glad to do
>that after the meeting.
Speaking as one of the editors of LoST, and not as a general statement
on this problem, a clear discuss from the beginning would have been
helpful. I have been willing to have phone calls, conduct a series of email
exchanges, and chat via IM on this; I want this document to be right.
But the amount of effort you are requiring from the authors to
work towards a statement of the problem, much less a solution,
has been pretty significant: 10 emails from me alone on your issues alone, as
we worked toward an understanding of the issue you have.
That boiled down to a DISCUSS that should be as simple as
"In non-emergency use cases, I am concerned that the provisions
of 12.2 allow servers to use algorithms that will needlessly return
null results. Please add guidance for non-emergency use cases."
Speaking again as someone who thinks this is general problem, the
issue I am raising is not that there are bad discusses. The issue I
am raising is that the document which describes what discusses
are or should be has no force at the moment at all, and should be
a community document rather than a statement of the body
which may hold discusses. Only the latter allows the community
to hold the IESG accountable adequately.
regards,
Ted Hardie
>On Mar 6, 2008, at 1:35 PM, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
>
>> Cullen,
>>
>> Thank you for your statement that you are keen to make sure your
>> DISCUSSes are within the parameters of the discuss criteria ION. I
>> appreciate it. Perhaps I am naive or my understanding of the
>> English language is poor (they are both probably true), but could
>> you explain how one of your most recent DISCUSSes:
>>
>> "Cullen Jennings:
>>
>> Discuss [2008-03-05]:
>> There has been a lot of discussion about keying modes for
>> SRTP, so I'm glad to see a document that covers this topic
>> for MIKEY. For that reason, I think it's really important
>> to get this right. It looks to me like some of the issues
>> EKR raises need to be fixed in order to achieve that."
>>
>> does not fit into the DISCUSS non-criteria?
>>
>> "Unfiltered external party reviews. While an AD is welcome to
>> consult with external parties, the AD is expected to evaluate, to
>> understand and to concur with issues raised by external parties.
>> Blindly cut-and-pasting an external party review into a DISCUSS is
>> inappropriate if the AD is unable to defend or substantiate the
>> issues raised in the review."
>>
>> You chose to not even cut-and-paste the comments.
>>
>> I also wonder which of the DISCUSS criteria fit to advance that
>> specific document to an informational RFC. Are we to guess which
>> of the "the issues EKR raises" the authors need to fix?
>>
>> Needless to say, we don't need to debate the specifics of that
>> document here, but whereas your intent is honorable, the externally
>> observable behavior is unfortunately different. Sorry for picking
>> on you; I can probably find other similar examples on other ADs, but
>> I was thinking that the ION is not a BCP and so I have no basis to
>> raise the issue.
>>
>> Perhaps I am misunderstanding the ION or perhaps as Brian says that
>> there should be some flexibility in the application of the rules.
> >
>> regards,
>> Lakshminath
>>
>> On 3/6/2008 1:04 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
>>> Ted,
>>> Speaking for myself here but I suspect that other ADs are in the
>>> same boat ... I'm keen to make sure my Discusses are within the
>>> parameters of the discuss criteria ION regardless of the official
>>> status of this document. Agree we need to sort out what we the end
>>> result is of several experiments. I believe Russ is working to get
>>> that some IESG agenda time.
>>> Cullen
>>> On Mar 6, 2008, at 12:01 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>>>> The call for comments on IONs seems to have ended without
>>>> clarifying the effect of the end of the experiment on the standing
>>>> of current IONs. For most of them, I honestly don't think the
>>>> standing is much of an issue. But for the "discuss criteria" ION,
>>>> I believe it is a serious issue. At this point, it is difficult
>>>> to know
>>>> whether the discuss criteria document is in force or not, and the
>>>> extent to which the issuing body is bound by it.
>>>>
>>>> I think this is a very bad thing.
>>>>
>>>> I call on Russ to restore this document to its original status as
>>>> an Internet Draft and to process it as a BCP. IESG DISCUSSes are
>>>> a very serious part of our process at this point. Having a
>>>> community
>>>> agreed standard to which IESG members could be held was always a
>>>> better
>>>> path than than a document approved only by the IESG. Now that
>>>> the ION experiment is over and the status of its document is in
>>>> limbo, things are even worse.
>>>>
>>>> The current document is here:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/ion-discuss-criteria.html
>>>>
>>>> for those readers playing the home game.
>>>>
>>>> Ted Hardie
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IETF mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
