At 2:23 PM -0800 3/6/08, Cullen Jennings wrote: >Part of the reason I replied so quickly on this thread is that I >think I currently have two discuss that do not meet the discuss >criteria (this being one of them the other being on Lost). Totally >fair to pick on me here. Both were entered as, excuse the pun, fairly >fluffy comments because I believe fully stating each point by point >things would have actually make it significantly harder for the >editor of the documents to find a good solution. In both cases I >believe the editor pretty much understands the issue and if I get >requests to please rewrite to be a reasonable discuss, I'm glad to do >that after the meeting. Speaking as one of the editors of LoST, and not as a general statement on this problem, a clear discuss from the beginning would have been helpful. I have been willing to have phone calls, conduct a series of email exchanges, and chat via IM on this; I want this document to be right. But the amount of effort you are requiring from the authors to work towards a statement of the problem, much less a solution, has been pretty significant: 10 emails from me alone on your issues alone, as we worked toward an understanding of the issue you have. That boiled down to a DISCUSS that should be as simple as "In non-emergency use cases, I am concerned that the provisions of 12.2 allow servers to use algorithms that will needlessly return null results. Please add guidance for non-emergency use cases." Speaking again as someone who thinks this is general problem, the issue I am raising is not that there are bad discusses. The issue I am raising is that the document which describes what discusses are or should be has no force at the moment at all, and should be a community document rather than a statement of the body which may hold discusses. Only the latter allows the community to hold the IESG accountable adequately. regards, Ted Hardie >On Mar 6, 2008, at 1:35 PM, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote: > >> Cullen, >> >> Thank you for your statement that you are keen to make sure your >> DISCUSSes are within the parameters of the discuss criteria ION. I >> appreciate it. Perhaps I am naive or my understanding of the >> English language is poor (they are both probably true), but could >> you explain how one of your most recent DISCUSSes: >> >> "Cullen Jennings: >> >> Discuss [2008-03-05]: >> There has been a lot of discussion about keying modes for >> SRTP, so I'm glad to see a document that covers this topic >> for MIKEY. For that reason, I think it's really important >> to get this right. It looks to me like some of the issues >> EKR raises need to be fixed in order to achieve that." >> >> does not fit into the DISCUSS non-criteria? >> >> "Unfiltered external party reviews. While an AD is welcome to >> consult with external parties, the AD is expected to evaluate, to >> understand and to concur with issues raised by external parties. >> Blindly cut-and-pasting an external party review into a DISCUSS is >> inappropriate if the AD is unable to defend or substantiate the >> issues raised in the review." >> >> You chose to not even cut-and-paste the comments. >> >> I also wonder which of the DISCUSS criteria fit to advance that >> specific document to an informational RFC. Are we to guess which >> of the "the issues EKR raises" the authors need to fix? >> >> Needless to say, we don't need to debate the specifics of that >> document here, but whereas your intent is honorable, the externally >> observable behavior is unfortunately different. Sorry for picking >> on you; I can probably find other similar examples on other ADs, but >> I was thinking that the ION is not a BCP and so I have no basis to >> raise the issue. >> >> Perhaps I am misunderstanding the ION or perhaps as Brian says that >> there should be some flexibility in the application of the rules. > > >> regards, >> Lakshminath >> >> On 3/6/2008 1:04 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote: >>> Ted, >>> Speaking for myself here but I suspect that other ADs are in the >>> same boat ... I'm keen to make sure my Discusses are within the >>> parameters of the discuss criteria ION regardless of the official >>> status of this document. Agree we need to sort out what we the end >>> result is of several experiments. I believe Russ is working to get >>> that some IESG agenda time. >>> Cullen >>> On Mar 6, 2008, at 12:01 PM, Ted Hardie wrote: >>>> The call for comments on IONs seems to have ended without >>>> clarifying the effect of the end of the experiment on the standing >>>> of current IONs. For most of them, I honestly don't think the >>>> standing is much of an issue. But for the "discuss criteria" ION, >>>> I believe it is a serious issue. At this point, it is difficult >>>> to know >>>> whether the discuss criteria document is in force or not, and the >>>> extent to which the issuing body is bound by it. >>>> >>>> I think this is a very bad thing. >>>> >>>> I call on Russ to restore this document to its original status as >>>> an Internet Draft and to process it as a BCP. IESG DISCUSSes are >>>> a very serious part of our process at this point. Having a >>>> community >>>> agreed standard to which IESG members could be held was always a >>>> better >>>> path than than a document approved only by the IESG. Now that >>>> the ION experiment is over and the status of its document is in >>>> limbo, things are even worse. >>>> >>>> The current document is here: >>>> >>>> http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/ion-discuss-criteria.html >>>> >>>> for those readers playing the home game. >>>> >>>> Ted Hardie >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IETF mailing list >>> IETF@xxxxxxxx >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf