Dave CROCKER <dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
Magnus Westerlund wrote:
However, I am also quite concerned that we in the IETF are not
receiving reports about any problems we are creating.
If we are not receiving any reports, then any assertion that there is a
problem is a theoretical exercise.
A DISCUSS is not an _assertion_ that there is a problem: it is a call
for deliberation.
Such exercises can be useful, but they form a very poor basis for
blocking something that has a couple of decades of established practice.
Here's the heart of this discussion: because a DISCUSS is blocking,
Dave asserts it must not be exercised without substantial research.
IESG members, OTOH, don't have time for substantial research for
roughly 1,000 pages of documents per week. Dave's position is not
scalable to where we are today, least of all scalable to the future.
This morning's posting by John K nicely captures this problem: We need
to make a distinction between topics worthy of discussion (and even
concern) versus the authoritative imposition of blockage, particularly
when it is blockage by IETF management that conflicts with a competent
IETF working group's decision.
The former is reasonable, even to Dave.
The latter is a mythical beast.
Our system would work much better if folks like Dave chose to consider
each DISCUSS to be an instance of the former, and explained why they
think the concern is unwarranted.
The bald form of this is: Do you really think you know more about what
an email specification needs to contain than does an experienced email
working group?
Straw man alert!
1) There was no Working Group: this was an Individual Submission.
2) Only an Apps AD would be expected to concentrate on what an email
specification needs: the other ADs are expected to concentrate on
other aspects.
Sometimes the answer will be yes. If so, it needs to be explained.
Carefully and fully.
I dissent: this fails the scalability test.
Yes, my phrasing such a question is unpleasant, because it is
confrontational. But so is a Discuss. It is an AD confronting the
competence of a working group.
Dave chooses to see it that way. I don't. I choose to see it as
a call for deliberation, indicating that the document in question may
be in danger of misinterpretation.
Granted, 100 pages of specification is probably _always_ in danger
of misinterpretation... ;^)
The failure to ask such a question and then answer it satisfactorily
invites an appeal or an artificial change to a specification. In other
words, it invites gratuitous delay or it invites spontaneous and
therefore ill-advised changes to a document that has otherwise been
developed carefully over time and with extensive review.
The authors' names are in the document: they can choose to explain
or they can choose to take an "easy out". I'd prefer they explain...
This does not mean that there should be no Discusses. It does mean
that a Discuss needs to be based on truly compelling information that
a working group either lacked or misunderstood. And it needs to
explain this deficiency in the working group's process.
Sounds like Dave is campaigning for AD. If so, three cheers!
In the SMTP case there where never any communication with me in the
loop about my discuss position until after the appeal has been
submitted. From the point we actually had any discussion it didn't
take that long. But clearly a communication problem that involved
several parties.
This suggests a process failure of some sort. Either in the particulars
of this case or in the basic way a Discuss is developed, pursued and
resolved. My impression is the latter.
I'm willing to stipulate the latter, though the easiest finger to
point is at the Sponsoring AD, who had the theoretical responsibility
to follow through.
In this case, Lisa agreed to list the state as "Revised I-D needed"
and the author didn't provide a revised ID. We have no current procedure
specifying what happens then. Possibly we need one, but I certainly
don't volunteer to write it.
The easiest way, IMHO, would be for the author to explain to the
sponsoring AD why he believe the request unreasonable, and have the
sponsoring AD pass that on to the DISCUSSing AD(s). Does someone want
to write that up? What constitute an "explanation"? Does it need to
be addressed to the sponsoring AD? What if it's instead posted to a
mailing-list the AD is "likely" to read? Should the email Subject
indicate this is an explanation, or is it sufficient to bury a
sentence or two in what looks like a rant? (Again, I certainly don't
volunteer to write it.)
This makes it worth considering how things could be changed to make
concerns, such as you had, easier and less painful to resolve.
I totally agree!
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf