ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Handling the errata after the consensus call

2009-03-06 10:50:55


Pasi(_dot_)Eronen(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com wrote:
Dave Crocker wrote:

2.  The RFC Editor publishes rules for Errata.  So does the IESG.
You indicate that Pasi is refusing to process
draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-02 for two reasons: It introduces new
terminology and it makes too many changes.  Neither of these is
included (or excluded) from the RFC Editor or IESG Errata rules.
Pasi should explain his basis for adding these constraints.

I do not believe the errata meets this criteria, agreed by the IESG
for IETF Stream RFCs:

http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/iesg-statement-07-30-2008.txt:

Pasi,

That document contains specifics.  I am asking you to cite the specifics that 
cover the reasons given for your refusal to process this as an Errata.

To make this simpler:

    Let's say you refused to process the Errata because the Errata contained 
the 
word "the".  And when asked to explain your reason, you said:

    "I do not believe the errata meets this criteria, agreed by the IESG
    for IETF Stream RFCs:

    http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/iesg-statement-07-30-2008.txt";

    No one would find that an adequate explanation.

Yet this is exactly what you have just done, since I do not see any way to 
interpret the text of the IESG statement as covering the conditions Barry cited.

You obviously do see a way and I am asking you to explain it, by providing the 
details.



7. Changes that modify the working of a protocol to something that
might be different from the intended consensus when the document
was approved should be either Hold for Document Update or
Rejected. Deciding between these two depends on judgment.
Changes that are clearly modifications to the intended consensus,
or involve large textual changes, should be Rejected. In unclear
situations, small changes can be Hold for Document Update.

We have already exchanged many off-list emails about this topic, and 
I get the impression that you disagree both with the IESG statement 
itself and my judgement call. 


I haven't commented on the adequacy of the statement.

In fact I keep trying to reconcile the reasons you cite with the content of 
that 
statement.  That's the failure that /I/ keep citing and that's why I'm asking 
you to be specific, rather than just invoking the IESG statement in its 
entirety.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html