I wanted to provide on update on where we are with this.
We had a lengthy last call discussion in the spring, which raised a number of
issues that we will have to deal with. Unfortunately, a lot of my time was
consumed in other matters so we didn’t make immediate conclusions. But after
IETF97 I have instructed the authors to take into account what I saw as the
feedback in the last call. Please see my conclusions below and let me know if
you there’s anything amiss.
The authors will be revising the document, and once that happens there will be
another last call. Note that there are a few issues that will require further
discussion on that last call.
Jari Arkko, as responsible AD for the document
——
Stephen Farrell’s concern re: remote vs. in-person attendees was resolved I
think without text changes (Jari’s mail on March 22)
Russ Housley’s concern re: “IETF sanctioned” should be resolved per Brian’s and
Harald's suggestions (Brian's mail on March 26).
Russ Housley’s concern re: changes from the previous RFC section is basically
valid (Russ’s mail on March 25), and you guys need to act on that. Maybe my
diffs from earlier are helpful in gathering an explanation of changes.
Gonzalo Camarillo’s concern re: ADs being assumed to read all documents in
their area seems valid and needs to be fixed. There was no unanimous opinion on
this, but I think enough people commented that felt it was an issue (Spencer,
Jari, Gonzalo, Alissa, Barry, Ben vs. Brian and Stephan). Stephan makes an
argument on April 4 that “reasonably and personally” includes awareness of the
documents, but I think that is incorrect if the future BCP on this topic
explicitly rules everything in the area to be something where the AD
participates in, even if he or she might not even be the AD for the group in
question. Finally, I don’t think the suggestion from John Klensin and others on
ADs sending notes of recusal works well because, frankly, how would you recuse
when the initial problem we had was that you might not read enough about the
other half WG’s work to recognise there’s an issue. The suggestion from John
was also opposed by Joel.
I’d suggest using a variation Spencer’s wording (Spencer’s mail on March 30) or
alternatively you can work out suitable words yourselves. I don’t think the
general language from Barry works (April 4) because the WG chairs and ADs are
really in a different position, and it is better to separate them in the text.
Here’s my suggestion:
OLD:
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, acting as a working group
chair or Area Director constitutes "Participating" in all activities of the
relevant working group or area.
NEW:
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, acting as a working group
chair or Area Director constitutes "Participating" in all activities of the
relevant working group or working groups he or she is responsible for in an
area.
A follow-up to Gonzalo’s concern was raised later in the discussion re: ADs
often seeing the materials late in the process. There seemed to be support for
adding this to the document. I think it may make sense to add this too, though
I think the previous change is the fundamental thing. Here’s the suggested
additional text:
NEW:
By the nature of their office, IETF area directors may become aware of
Contributions late in the process (for example at IETF Last Call or during IESG
review) and, therefore and in such cases, cannot be expected to disclose any
IPR Covering those Contributions until they become aware of them.
Michael Cameron suggested the removal of the “reasonably” language in his April
5 email. I did not see sufficient backing for this particular change, but since
he initiated it I think due to the discussion of the AD role requirements, I
think the above changes cover that original reason for his issue. I think there
were other issues too, however, and I’m not sure we’ve adequately discussed
those yet. There was a distinction on “covers” vs. “ultimately covers” for
instance. May need more discussion during the new last call.
John Klensin suggested in his April 5 mail that the document be changed to
become more of an ethical obligations than a legalistic rules one. I did not
see enough support for this change. Brian Carpenter’s suggestion (April 6) on
draft-ymbk-ietf-ethics seemed a reasonable one.
Alissa Cooper’s editorial comments from her mail on April 1: These need to be
acted upon (except the first issue which was follow-up to Gonzalo’s issue).
Lars Eggert’s editorial comments from his mail on April 4: These need to be
acted upon. In addition, there were a number of more substantial issues in his
email:
- including IRTF and RGs within the definition of “IETF documents”. This is
tricky, because the IETF can’t specify what IRTF wants. However, I think we can
do this, *if* we also extend the last call and point this out to IRTF
participants explicitly, if we don't have differing rules.
- relaxing rules regarding not including terms: I’d suggest we not need new
text for this. I also don’t want to make exceptions for IRTF, unless we have
to. I think the current text supports the running code on the IRTF side as well.
- irtf stream manager: I’d suggest we take out the following text: "(i.e., the
Internet Architecture Board (IAB), Internet Research Steering Group (IRSG) and
Independent Submission Editor)."
Pete Resnick suggested to put back in the three principles to Section 2 that
were deleted from the previous RFC (April 11). These should be adopted, lacking
evidence to the contrary (since we are doing a -bis; we should only make
substantive changes when there’s clear consensus to do so).
Pete Resnick suggested to put back the material from RFC 3979 Section 4.1 that
were deleted from the previous RFC (April 11). These should be adopted, lacking
evidence to the contrary (since we are doing a -bis).
Pete Resnick had editorial suggestions on Sections 5.2.1, 5.4.2, and 5.5 (April
11). These should be adopted.
Pete Resnick had a concern on forcing people to document applicability to the
contribution 5.4.2 (April 11). This may require further discussion, although I
personally am inclined to agree with Pete. I had posted a response on April 25,
for which there was no other response. Needs further discussion during 2nd last
call.
Pete Resnick had a concern on adding the word “all” to Section 7 (April 11).
This seems like an oversight to me, and should be corrected.
Finally, on my personal re-read of the document, I’d suggest the following:
In Section 7,
OLD:
This paragraph is provided for information only:
NEW:
The following paragraphs are provided for information only:
(I think the rest of the section is informative, correct?)
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail