Re: Last Call: 'The IESG and RFC Editor documents: Procedures' to BCP

John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> · Tue, 11 May 2004 21:04:14 -0400

--On Tuesday, May 11, 2004 12:39 PM -0400 Scott Bradner 
<sob@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

in general that seems OK though I'd like to see "including the
possibility of the author pursuing the work within the IETF"
added

Clearly I intended that option to be included.  I didn't state 
it for two reasons.  First, I thought it was obvious.  Second, 
it felt like it was looking for trouble to identify one example 
("pursue the work within the IETF" while not identifying any 
others.  And, bluntly, the obvious other example is "the IESG 
beats the author (I hope only intellectually and metaphorically) 
to a  pulp and convinces him that the document is really stupid 
and will cause him embarrassment for the rest of his life".  I 
don't want to go anywhere near that in this sort of document, 
but avoiding doing anything that would permit someone to 
complain that AD administration of a clue-by-four (even 
aggressively) is inappropriate.

Much more broadly and IMO, if the IETF is going to be worth 
anything a few years from now, the ADs have to be enabled to 
educate, and encouraged and expected to do so, even when the 
subject of such education is unwilling.   As long as "education" 
doesn't shift into "intimidation", if the side effect of such 
education is withdrawal of a dumb document, then I think it is 
wonderful.  This isn't the critical mainstream for this 
document, with or without the suggested modifications, but, 
based on the experience of the last few years, I get really 
worried about text -- especially new text-- in these procedural 
documents that enables or encourages potential protocol 
lawyers... whether they are inside the IESG or outside the core 
IETF community.

   john

 --On Tuesday, May 11, 2004 12:39 PM -0400 Scott Bradner 
<sob@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

in general that seems OK though I'd like to see "including the
possibility of the author pursuing the work within the IETF"
added

----

From john-ietf@xxxxxxx  Tue May 11 12:18:30 2004
X-Original-To: sob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-To: sob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 12:18:20 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx>
To: Scott Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxxxx>, harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx,
	iesg@xxxxxxxx, ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'The IESG and RFC Editor documents:
 Procedures' to BCP
In-Reply-To: <20040511135704.3E2D51E97E8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References:  <20040511135704.3E2D51E97E8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.3 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Scott, Harald,

It seems to me that this problem/ disagreement could be easily
solved while preserving the (IMO, valid) points both of you
are  making, by including a sentence somewhere to the effect
of...

	Of course, the IESG or individual ADs may have
	discussions with the author during this period about
	other possible ways to handle the document.  Should that
	discussion result in a voluntary action by the author to
	drop the request to the RFC Editor to publist, the
	document moves immediately outside the scope of this
	specification.

Now, that may not be the right phrasing in context, and can
certainly be improved.   But I think it covers the full range
of  from "we really think this should be standardized, why not
let  us process it that way" to "if you insist on publishing
that  thing, I'm going to break both of your legs".   The
question of  whether those actions are appropriate is a
separate issue, but  the IESG has never been able to insist on
either standardization  or withdrawal.  And, as far as I know,
both actions are  identical as far as the RFC Editor is
concerned: the document is  spontaneously withdrawn as an
individual submission.

       john

--On Tuesday, May 11, 2004 9:57 AM -0400 Scott Bradner
<sob@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Anything else should (IMHO) be advice to the RFC Editor and
the author, and  not be part of the formal position-taking
the IESG makes.

we may be debating termonology

your ID says "The IESG may return five different responses"

that seems to eliminate the possibility of communicating any
such advice

Because in the past, we've seriously bogged down independent
publications  because we were debating (with or without the
author) whether or not they  should be IETF work.
And we need to stop doing that.

beware of tossing too much away just to "stop doing that"

I still fail to see why this document cannot say that one of
the outcomes could be that the author could agree with the
IESG to bring the work into the IETF -  it seems a bit
dogmatic to refuse to say that (and counter to the intent of
2026)

Scott

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

----

From john-ietf@xxxxxxx  Tue May 11 12:18:30 2004
X-Original-To: sob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-To: sob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 12:18:20 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx>
To: Scott Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxxxx>, harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx,
	iesg@xxxxxxxx, ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'The IESG and RFC Editor documents:
 Procedures' to BCP
In-Reply-To: <20040511135704.3E2D51E97E8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References:  <20040511135704.3E2D51E97E8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.3 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Scott, Harald,

It seems to me that this problem/ disagreement could be easily
solved while preserving the (IMO, valid) points both of you
are  making, by including a sentence somewhere to the effect
of...

	Of course, the IESG or individual ADs may have
	discussions with the author during this period about
	other possible ways to handle the document.  Should that
	discussion result in a voluntary action by the author to
	drop the request to the RFC Editor to publist, the
	document moves immediately outside the scope of this
	specification.

Now, that may not be the right phrasing in context, and can
certainly be improved.   But I think it covers the full range
of  from "we really think this should be standardized, why not
let  us process it that way" to "if you insist on publishing
that  thing, I'm going to break both of your legs".   The
question of  whether those actions are appropriate is a
separate issue, but  the IESG has never been able to insist on
either standardization  or withdrawal.  And, as far as I know,
both actions are  identical as far as the RFC Editor is
concerned: the document is  spontaneously withdrawn as an
individual submission.

       john

--On Tuesday, May 11, 2004 9:57 AM -0400 Scott Bradner
<sob@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Anything else should (IMHO) be advice to the RFC Editor and
the author, and  not be part of the formal position-taking
the IESG makes.

we may be debating termonology

your ID says "The IESG may return five different responses"

that seems to eliminate the possibility of communicating any
such advice

Because in the past, we've seriously bogged down independent
publications  because we were debating (with or without the
author) whether or not they  should be IETF work.
And we need to stop doing that.

beware of tossing too much away just to "stop doing that"

I still fail to see why this document cannot say that one of
the outcomes could be that the author could agree with the
IESG to bring the work into the IETF -  it seems a bit
dogmatic to refuse to say that (and counter to the intent of
2026)

Scott

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf