On 08/09/15 18:03, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 9/8/2015 9:19 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
My overall conclusion is that the last call has established that
there is rough consensus for this status change and I've put this
on the IESG telechat for Sept 17th so the rest of the IESG can
evaluate that.
...
Lastly, I do recognise that the consensus for at least the
in-place part of the status change is rough, so I've called
that out to the IESG via Robert's summary and Dave's response. [2]
1. Citing concerns is not the same as dealing with them. My note
pointed out basic problems with Robert's summary.
I don't agree that your note pointed out basic problems with Robert's
summary, nor that there remains anything you raised that needs to be
dealt with still.
I've gone back over the mails [1-5] you've sent to the IETF list in
this last call. The relevant points (*) that I see that you made are:
1. the intention behind the status change wasn't sufficiently clear
2. the saag list is somehow not a proper venue for initial discussion
of this because it doesn't have a formal way of judging rough
consensus
I think #1 was clearly discussed during the last call and is noted
in Robert's summary as a result of which I attempted to reflect what
I saw in the last call related to that in the status-change text
edit. If my text changes in that respect can be improved, which is
entirely possible, I'm fine with doing that. I don't think a claim
that wasn't discussed is compelling at all.
I think #2 is bogus. You asserted a number of times that somehow this
depends on asserting that there was a formal consensus call. There was
no such formal consensus call and no such assertion was made or
depended upon. Feel free to point out where I'm wrong on that. (Perhaps
you read between the lines when no subtlety was intended? That does
happen.) What happened is that Kathleen and I both judged that there
had been sufficient agreement on the saag list and in Prague to start
an IETF last call. If you want to argue we're not supposed to do that,
for an AD sponsored status change, go right ahead but please consider
the level of additional pointless bureaucracy implied in your winning
that argument. So, I'm sorry, but your #2 is I conclude a non-issue.
Cheers,
S.
(*) I've omitted your discussion in the sub-thread with Stewart in
the above.
[1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg94256.html
[2] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg94306.html
[3] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg94550.html
[4] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg94635.html
[5] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg94671.html
It was meant as an
invitation to /repair/ it's deficiency's, rather than merely note that
someone had some concerns.
2. An essential contribution of RFC 7282 is to emphasize the importance
of attending to 'minority' concerns. On the current topic, they have
not been attended to, although the concerns expressed have been
fundamental to the role and handling of the document.
3. There is a continuing pattern of citing SAAG as if its discussions
equate to that of a working group, such as noting "rough consensus"
within that group. Advisory group discussions, such as by SAAG, can be
quite helpful. /But they are not chartered working groups, with
advertised agendas and deliverables./ As I noted, SAAG's composition
and conduct are fundamentally inappropriate to cite for a
standards-oriented decision. Worse, the citation of rough consensus on
SAAG has no obvious basis from the mailing list record.
d/