On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> "John" == John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> writes: > > John> On the other hand, if there is a real commitment to action, > John> then WGs have to be accountable for design decisions that do > John> (or do not) support the goal and be ready to explain their > John> decisions, even privacy-protecting ones that impose or > John> increase costs to performance, operations, or elsewhere. And > John> I would expect (not merely fear) ADs to push back strongly on > John> a WG that was unwilling or unable to do that and expect > John> Nomcoms to hold ADs accountable if they did not enforce the > John> intent of the rules. > > Strongly agreed. > And if we don't have a community commitment to do that can we please be > honest with the world and tell everyone that when we look at the cost of > this issue it was something our community did not choose to pay? Being ready to explain decisions (or positions) is fine. The problem was the word "justify". When do we know that a decision is justified? Who decides? That's an undefined metric. WG decisions are explained, and critiqued, all the time, by everyone. Personally I hope we don't develop too "mature" a concept of what we're including in pervasive monitoring, because we need to be open to new ideas all the time. Therefore I hope we never develop criteria by which a PM consideration could be "justified". > Note however that I do not want ADs pushing back at the end of the > process (unless WGs clearly failed to get adequate review of their > architectures up front.) (Aside: That's circular -- unless the critique is based on new ideas that emerged between WG last call and a telechat, then by definition a late critique of an architectural issue means it failed to get adequate review at the proper time.) > I want ADs to be pushing back in the early architecture phases. > Comments on early architecture drafts, and WG-decision-level appeals > filed early in the process are probably better tools for pushing back > on WGs that are not adequately considering privacy than late-stage > discuss positions requiring architectural change. Yes, and we encourage that with the paragraph as it is, without "justified". > And as Eliot points out, the question of what balance in tradeoffs is > appropriate will evolve over time. At the beginning if a WG does a good > job of considering something and you just don't like how they balanced > the issues, your only option is to start a broader discussion. That's > how it should it be. If community norms emerge, then there are tools > for applying those. Yes. Do we have agreement? Scott