[Top] [All Lists]

Re: IONs & discuss criteria

2008-03-06 15:30:36
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,

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:


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.


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  agenda time.
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.

                Ted  Hardie

IETF mailing list

IETF mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>