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:
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
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.
On 3/6/2008 1:04 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
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
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
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
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:
for those readers playing the home game.
IETF mailing list
IETF mailing list