Short version: A change in version 14 may give the impression that
there is some possibility that the chairs'
recommendation is in accordance with group
consensus. Yet such consensus has never been tested
and my impression from mailing list messages is that
many participants are unhappy with this
recommendation.
Tony makes his own substantial changes to the report
and responds to the suggestions of some other people.
However, he has not responded to my two previous
attempts to suggest improvements to the report,
including one in August which was supported by Toni
Stoev.
Hi Tony,
In version 14:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-14
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-14.txt
you updated a reference, gave details of the face to face meetings and
made one other change: adding "necessarily" to:
Thus, the recommendation reflects the opinions of the chairs and
not necessarily the consensus of the group.
-----------
It is my impression from the mailing list that there is no consensus
on what to recommend and that many list participants disagree with
your recommendation.
I think this addition of "necessarily" is likely to give the
impression that there was some possibility that the consensus of the
group (although it has never been tested) might be in accordance with
the recommendation you and Lixia made.
I think that would be a false impression.
This is my third attempt since May to improve this draft. You seem to
have ignored my two previous attempts.
At one point (msg07186, 2010-07-31) you indicated you were not
interested in accepting changes to "content", but when Eliot Lear
later suggested some content changes you were happy with, you accepted
them (msg07265).
Here are the recent versions and discussions regarding matters of content:
Version 09 (2010-07-30):
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-09.txt
Added some definitions of terms, and included many adjustments to
summaries, critiques and rebuttals.
On 2010-08-01 I suggested you update the ILNP material to correct the
claim (which I have argued is false, and no-one has shown to be true)
that ILNP can work with existing IPv6 applications:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg07185.html
Your response (msg07186) was simply:
> Did you have any editorial comments?
> All I'm finding are (continued) disputes about content.
Toni Stoev (msg07188) supported my view that these problems were more
important than editorial matters, but you didn't respond to his
message either.
On 2010-08-17 (msg07247) you stated that only one comment was received
about version 08 and that this was of an editorial nature. I pointed
out (msg07254) that this statement is incorrect since it ignores
Toni's and my messages - but you did not respond.
Version 10 (2010-08-17):
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-10.txt
Re-arranging references.
Version 11 (2010-08-24):
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-11.txt
Updated a few references.
Version 12 (2010-08-25):
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-12.txt
added a sentence to the introduction:
"The document has been reviewed by many of the active members
of the Research Group."
This draft was sent to the IRSG and you responded to comments from
Paul Hoffman, including about the crucial "content" matter of
explaining how you and Lixia arrived at your recommendation.
Version 13 (2010-09-07)
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-13.txt
revises the abstract and contains an almost completely new section 1.1
"Background to this document" - in response to Paul Hoffman's suggestions.
On 2010-09-09 I was the only person to comment on version 13 (at lest
on the RRG list):
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg07312.html
but 10 days later you have neither responded to my suggestions nor
included them in version 14.
I suggested you mention that no counterpoints were received, and that
you explain it was Lixia's and your decision to limit the summary,
critique and rebuttal to 500 words, with only one critique being
allowed. The current wording does not mention the actual word limit,
but describes the limit as severe and "For pragmatic reasons". Yet
there was no consensus test on this limit or the restriction of one
critique.
I would have thought that for reasons of brevity you would want to
mention that there was an opportunity for counterpoints to the
rebuttals, and that none were received. That would add a line or two.
Then you could remove all 14 sub-headings, their lines in the TOC and
the 14 instances of "No counterpoint was submitted for this
proposal.". This would shorten the report by about 1.4 pages and make
it easier to read.
I also raised a concern that the current text gives readers no
indication that four of the critiques were written by authors of the
architecture, and that another one was partially written by a
proponent. Readers would generally assume critiques are not written
by authors.
It seems you respond to and accept suggestions you agree with, and
make your own substantial changes - but have so far not responded on
the list regarding both my attempts since May (backed in one instance
by Toni Stoev) to improve the report (msg07185 & msg07312).
I don't understand how this is consistent with encouraging an open
discussion and improving the report. If you think there's something
wrong with what I or anyone else suggested, I suggest that the
constructive thing to do would be to point out why on the mailing list.
- Robin
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
