Would people like to see a new version of the SIRS draft? In addition to the questions John raised below, Francis and others mentioned: lack of reviewers. Also there is the question of overlap with Area review teams such as secdir, and there is accumulated experience from Gen-ART (RFC 6385).
Regards Brian On 03/05/2013 08:29, John Leslie wrote: > Pete Resnick <presn...@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote: >> Note that although we did ask the bigger question, the more central >> question relates to what we on the IESG can do all by ourselves (without >> making changes to the formal processes) that we can discuss during our >> IESG meeting next week. So don't limit your thinking to things that >> require process changes; suggested behavior changes on the part of ADs >> are also useful. > > The ADs could do worse than starting from the SIRS draft: > > tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-icar-sirs-01 > > but as I read through it, I find a number of issues which I'd advise > _not_ trying to resolve. For example: > > - All reviews public: not always a good idea; > > - Normally posted to WG list: often a bad idea -- to easy for them to > start a flame-war; > > - Standardized summary message: these may be a very poor choice for > early reviews; > > - Selection process: it's far more important that the IESG be comfortable > with each member. > > OTOH it contains items which SHOULD be taken seriously: > > - No change to formal process; > > - Formal process to add SIRS members; > > - Inactive members fall off the SIRS list; > > - WG may request a particular member; > > - WG should request more than one reviewer; > > - Earlier reviews should consider architectural questions; > > - Three review cycle per document should be the minimum. > > ==== > > I also note the overlapping discussion of DNS type SPF... > From: Doug Barton <do...@dougbarton.us> >> Given that you can be 100% confident that the issue will be raised >> during IETF LC, wouldn't it be better to hash it out in the WG (as we >> have attempted to do)? Or is the WG's position, "we have no intention of >> dealing with this unless we're forced to?" > > In this case, hashing it out on the WG list at this stage seems a > _bad_ idea. If we had gotten a SIRS review right at the beginning, it > could perhaps be discussed on the WG list; but by now it's doubtful > any discussion would change anyone's mind. (And, of course, if the WG > had chosen only SIRS reviewers that agreed with their preferred way > of resolving the issue, the issue _wouldn't_ have been resolved early > in the process...) > > This is on it's way to being a poster-child "late surprise". :^( > >> I'm fully sympathetic with your collective desire to move the process >> forward, and finish your document. The problem is that as it stands the >> document contains a course of action that is not only bad on its face, >> but contrary to a basic architectural principle adopted 4 years ago in >> 5507. > > BTW, I agree with Doug Barton that deprecating type SPF has some serious > negatives. The IESG will have to balance WG rough-consensus against > architectural principles; and I see no resolution that won't invite > appeals. :^( > > In a properly designed early-review situation, the issue would have > surfaced early; and it's possible it could have been resolved before > too many folks' positions had hardened... > > -- > John Leslie <j...@jlc.net> >
