Short version: If (as I think Joel implies) it is a condition for
passing this draft to IESG approval that all
comments be either addressed in the current draft
or (I guess) be the subject of persuasive counter-
arguments in RRG list discussion, then this
condition has not been met.
There seems to have been a pattern of the chair
silently ignoring constructive comments about this
draft - from me and at least two other people.
Hi Joel,
Regarding the 2010-09-17 version:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-14
you wrote, in part (typos corrected):
> The current I-D addresses all comments that were received during the
> review period. (There actually were a few comments beyond the one
> reviewer.)
I think the first sentence is incorrect.
Version 14 doesn't address these comments:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg07312.html
2010-09-09
Nor does it address these comments regarding how ILNP is described in
version 09 as being compatible with IPv6 applications, whereas I have
argued it is not, and no-one has shown how an ILNP-equipped stack
could work with existing IPv6 applications:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg07254.html
2010-08-23
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg07186.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg07187.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg07188.html
2010-08-01 (the last one by Toni Stoev in support of my concerns)
The changes I suggested in these messages are not reflected in version 14.
The only response to the above-mentioned messages was Tony Li's:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg07186.html
2010-08-01
in which he dismissed my concerns on the grounds that they involved
the content of the draft, rather than simply editorial matters. Toni
Stoev responded to Tony that matters of content were more important
than editorial changes. Nonetheless, Tony did make changes to the
content of the draft, for instance based on a suggestion by Eliot Lear
(msg07264, 2010-08-25).
In msg07247 (2010-08-17) Tony Li stated that only a single comment had
been received about version 09 - and he was referring to another
comment, regarding an editorial matter. This statement was incorrect,
since it ignored msg07186, msg07187 and msg07188.
The draft has not been changed regarding a concern I expressed:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg07342.html
2010-08-18
regarding a change from version 13 to version 14 from:
Thus, the recommendation reflects the opinions of the chairs and
not the consensus of the group.
to:
Thus, the recommendation reflects the opinions of the chairs and
not necessarily the consensus of the group.
On the same day, Stephen Strowes wrote in support of this concern,
with a suggested resolution (which I support) of deleting the second
part of the sentence:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg07346.html
Toni Li has not responded (except dismissively in msg07186) to any of
the above messages, all of which were constructive suggestions for
improving the draft RRG Recommendation. This document is primarily a
set of summaries, critiques and counterpoints about the 15 proposed
architectures. It also contains the co-chair's recommendation for
what architectures the IETF should develop.
You also wrote:
> Therefore, this document is ready for IESG review preparatory to RFC
> Publication.
No-one argued on the list against the constructive suggestions listed
above. I think that Tony should either have accepted the changes or
argued persuasively against them - but he has done neither.
Your use of the word "Therefore" seems to indicate that in order for
the document to be ready for the IESG, it should either contain
changes which address all the comments and suggestions which were
made, or that those comments and suggestions should have been debated
on the list and persuasively argued against.
You can't have been referring only to the comments from the ISRG,
since you mentioned:
> (There actually were a few comments beyond the one reviewer.)
The one reviewer, as noted in:
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/wiki/IRSGReviewLog
is Paul Hoffman. His response to version 10 was:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg07291.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg07300.html
2010-09-01
If, as your message indicates, it is a condition for passing the I-D
on to IESG review that it reflect all comments made so far, then this
condition does not seem to have been met. The constructive comments
listed above were not responded to on the list by the chair or by
anyone else, and are not reflected in version 14.
- Robin
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
