Re: IONs & discuss criteria

Thanks for the clarification Cullen.  I appreciate it.  Speaking from 
the view point of someone on the other side, more often than not, a 
detailed DISCUSS is much more helpful.

Thank you again.

best wishes,
Lakshminath

On 3/6/2008 2:23 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
> 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