Hi, I agree with Warren and disagree with Pete on this issue. Of course, adding more arguments, being more verbose when expressing support is very useful. However, I consider the brief comments like the one made by Russ useful - at least in determining consensus. I am actually encouraging such comments in the WGs I chair. I would like to add an argument, irrespective of who made the comment (which also counts IMO). Assuming a LC of some sorts (IETFLC, WGLC) gets only two negative comments. Would it not be useful to know that it's (2 (negative) vs. 0 (positive)) or (2 (negative) vs. 10 (positive))? Indeed, we do not count votes in the IETF, but then we also have a problem in interpreting silence, and for this purpose IMO what in this thread is called 'content-free' actually has a lot of content on this respect. Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > Warren Kumari > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 8:22 PM > To: Pete Resnick > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [IETF] Content-free Last Call comments > > [ Not sure if this is adding to the Signal or the Noise on the Discuss > list, but it *will* help bump up my ranking on the "Weekly posting > summary", which I use to justify my participation to my management. > That's what it's for, isn't it?!* ] On Jun 10, 2013, at 4:37 PM, Pete > Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Russ, our IAB chair and former IETF chair, just sent a message to the > IETF list regarding a Last Call on draft-ietf-pkix-est. Here is the > entire contents of his message, save quoting the whole Last Call > request: > > > > On 6/10/13 1:45 PM, Russ Housley wrote: > >> I have read the document, I a support publication on the standards > track. > >> > >> Russ > > > > A month ago, we had another very senior member of the community post > just such a message (in that case directly to the IESG) in response to a > different Last Call. I took that senior member of the community to task > for it. But apparently Russ either disagrees with my complaint or didn't > notice that discussion on the IESG list, so I think it's worth airing > here in public: > > > > A statement such as the above is almost entirely useless to me as an > IESG member trying to determine consensus. It is content-free. > > I disagree. > > > > > We don't vote in the IETF, so a statement of support without a reason > is meaningless. We should not be encouraging folks to send such things, > and having the IAB chair do so is encouraging bad behavior. Had I not > known Russ and his particular expertise, I would have no reason to take > it into consideration *at all*. We should not have to determine the > reputation of the poster to determine the weight of the message. Even > given my background knowledge of who Russ is, I cannot tell from that > message which one of the following Russ is saying: > > > > - This document precisely describes a protocol of which I have been an > implementer, and I was able to independently develop an interoperable > implementation from the document. > > - This document is about a technology with which I have familiarity > and I have reviewed the technical details. It's fine. > > - I've seen objection X to the document and I think the objection is > incorrect for such-and-so reasons. > > - My company has a vested interest in this technology becoming a > standard, and even though I know nothing about it, I support it becoming > a standards track document. > > - My Aunt Gertrude is the document editor and she said that she needs > statements of support, so here I am. > > - I have a running wager on when we're going to reach RFC 7000 and I > want to increase my odds of winning. > > > > I take it I am supposed to presume from my friendship and knowledge of > Russ that one of the first three is true and that the last three are > not. > > (Well, maybe the last one might be true.) But if instead of from "Russ > Housely", the message was from "Foo Bar", I would have absolutely no way > to distinguish among the above. > > Actually, yes. > > Russ has been participating in the IETF (and specifically in the area > where he posted the above email) for a long time -- you know this, > because you've also been participating. > In *my opinion* he has shown himself to be diligent and sane. This means > that *I* would give his comment and support great weight -- I'd *assume* > he has read and understood the document, and is supporting it because > #1, 2, 3 and / or 6. If Foo Bar had posted the comment, and in *my* > opinion Foo Bar is a total nutter, I would give his comment less, or > possibly negative, weight. Obviously your opinions of Russ and Foo may > be opposite to mine -- you apply your own weighting to each comment -- > that's why we pay you the big bucks... > > If Foo Bar is new enough to the IETF and cannot reasonably expect > everyone on the IESG (or in a WG or wherever) to know and have formed an > opinion of him, then it is *Foo Bar's* responsibility to more fully > support his comments. > > Do folk who actually *participate* actively and sanely get to assume > that they have earned some standing and credibility? Yup. I view this as > a feature, not a bug. > > If I go to my doctor and he tells me that I simply have a cold (and not, > like I'm convinced, the plague), I should presumably weight his comments > higher than those of my crazy next door neighbor (who, apparently, > routinely communicates with beings from another dimension), yes? > > We want to reward merit and participation, not make the process so > annoying that those who participate get annoyed and wander off. > > If anyone *opposes* a draft, I think that it behooves them to explain > what the issue is, regardless of who they are. This is similar to at a > restaurant -- when the waiter asks if you are enjoying your [steak|tofu] > it's fine to say "Yes thanks, great", but if express displeasure you > should be ready to explain what you didn't like. > > > > > > I think we should stop with these one-line statements of support. They > don't add anything to the consensus call. I'm disappointed that Russ > contributed to this pattern. > > > > Other opinions? > > My opinion is that the folk on the IETF / WG chairs / anyone evaluating > information uses their opinion on the source of that information as > input to it's weight. This is why we have people judging consensus (see > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-resnick-on-consensus-01 :-P) and not > voting / an algorithm. > > W > > > > > pr > > > > -- > > Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> > > Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 > > > > > [*]: :-P > -- > "He who laughs last, thinks slowest." > -- Anonymous >