Part of the reason I replied so quickly on this thread is that I
think I currently have two discuss that do not meet the discuss
criteria (this being one of them the other being on Lost). Totally
fair to pick on me here. Both were entered as, excuse the pun, fairly
fluffy comments because I believe fully stating each point by point
things would have actually make it significantly harder for the
editor of the documents to find a good solution. In both cases I
believe the editor pretty much understands the issue and if I get
requests to please rewrite to be a reasonable discuss, I'm glad to do
that after the meeting.
On Mar 6, 2008, at 1:35 PM, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
Cullen,
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:
"Cullen Jennings:
Discuss [2008-03-05]:
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 review."
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.
regards,
Lakshminath
On 3/6/2008 1:04 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
Ted,
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 agenda time.
Cullen
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 know
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
better
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:
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/ion-discuss-criteria.html
for those readers playing the home game.
Ted Hardie
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf