[Top] [All Lists]

Re: IONs & discuss criteria

2008-03-06 15:52:18
At 2:23 PM -0800 3/6/08, 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.

Speaking as one of the editors of LoST, and not as a general statement
on this problem, a clear discuss from the beginning would have been
helpful.  I have been willing to have phone calls, conduct a series of email
exchanges, and chat via IM on this; I want this document to be right.
But the amount of effort you are requiring from the authors to
work towards a statement of the problem, much less a solution,
has been pretty significant:  10 emails from me alone on your issues alone, as
we worked toward an understanding of the issue you have.
That boiled down to a DISCUSS that should be as simple as
"In non-emergency use cases, I am concerned that the provisions
of 12.2 allow servers to use algorithms that will needlessly return
null results.   Please add guidance for non-emergency use cases."

Speaking again as someone who thinks this is general problem, the
issue I am raising is not that there are bad discusses.  The issue I
am raising is that the document which describes what discusses
are or should be has no force at the moment at all, and should be
a community document rather than a statement of the body
which may hold discusses.  Only the latter allows the community
to hold the IESG accountable adequately.

                                        Ted Hardie

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  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
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>