Re: Review of draft-yevstifeyev-ion-report-06

On 07/16/11 06:12, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> Hello Harald,
>
> As you could see in one of my previous messages, I did intend to 
> include some analysis in the draft 
> (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg67491.html).  
> However, numerous responses which discouraged me from doing this were 
> received, and including that section will create problems with consensus. 
I saw the messages. It is very hard to write an analysis on behalf of 
someone else - to my mind, the analysis of why the IESG decided what 
they did has to be based on information from the IESG; it's impossible 
for any outsider, including you and me, to divine what their thought 
processes on this matter were.
There's no IETF consensus to be documented here; the analysis and 
decision was done by the IESG, and the IESG (as it was composed at that 
time) is the body from which the information has to come. All any 
outsider (like you and me) can do is to help with the editing.
> However, I share your opinion that the document won't be full, so I 
> think the following analysis section, which is different from the 
> previous proposed one, can satisfy you and everybody else:
Now, if someone were to speak for the then-present IESG and say the same 
thing, I would make the following comments:
> > 3.4. Analysis
> >
> >    There were a number of reasons which forced IESG to close the IONs
> >    experiment. 
Nit: "forced IESG" -> "caused the IESG to decide". There's no forcing 
function.
> > One of them is a complexity of their approval and
> >    publication, compared with ones for IESG Statements and simple Web
> >    Pages.  As IONs were intended to represent operational experience,
> >    they might have needed to be updated quickly.  Even though these
> >    documents were meant to have a very lightweight approval procedure,
> >    it could sometimes be inappropriate for that material which was
> >    contained therein.
In a protocol, I'd ask for a definition of "quickly". Days, weeks or 
months? Examples of documents where "days" is the correct timescale?
> >    Secondly, due to the nature of the scope of IONs, there was no need
> >    to allow the access to the revision history (which is unavailable in
> >    simple Web Pages as well).
I disagree with this statement, obviously. If the IESG thought so, it is 
correct to include it.
> >    Thirdly, IONs on procedural question could step into the conflict
> >    with Best Current Practice (BCP) RFCs; moreover, as IONs approval
> >    procedure did not imply any formal community review, unlike BCPs,
> >    they could easily fall in the community non-acceptance.
I believe this is a red herring. However, I can fully believe that the 
argument was raised, even though I don't believe it, so if the IESG 
indeed thought that, I'm fine with having that documented.
> >    Correspondingly, it was concluded that the mandate of IONs can fully
> >    be fulfilled by RFCs, when documenting IETF procedures, IESG
> >    Statements, when clearing up other issues for which RFC publication
> >    process is not appropriate, and Web Pages, when dealing with other
> >    IETF-related issues. 
Nit: "it was concluded" -> "the IESG concluded".

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf