I read your comments below, and I did not read the draft. I don't understand your suggestions related to draft and your edit recommendations are not clear so I can vote on. IMHO if you want to get changes done you need to clarify your amendments to the draft. So community or IESG can make decision per point.
I will wait for your clear request changes for me to vote.
My comments below;
On Saturday, August 30, 2014, Dave Crocker wrote:
Folks,
On 8/27/2014 2:58 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Your "blanket dismissal" point is nonsense. There were
> literally hundreds of mails about this draft, many of them
> from you and many responding to you.
This fails to distinguish between activity and substance response. In
fact, Stephen's note here is a good example of this continuing problem.
He can count it as a response, but it ignores or dismisses all of the
substantive points I raised.
I suggest sending one post per clear point (with sequence number of poster) with suggestion of change. It will be easier to track. You need to count your points and then reference it, example; Dave-comment#1, #2, ...
That's been the pattern throughout the development and discussion of
this document. Stephen has posted quite a number of notes that
similarly dismiss concerns and assert consensus, in spite of no
management effort to track and resolve concerns that are raised.
It is the job of the community to have a tracking tool, or you make one by your sequence number input on the message-subject. Some participant may make noise out of subject per post but you should maintain your transmissions and authors must respond to your posts.
And there remain some very basic issues with the document:
The issues need your suggestions to solve draft-errors and the community or IESG will make decisions.
1. The latest version (-04) has almost literally no text in common
with the previous (-03). It's likely that 90-95% of the text is different:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-dukhovni-opportunistic-security-03&difftype=--hwdiff&submit=Go!&url2=draft-dukhovni-opportunistic-security-04
By itself, that should warrant re-issuing a last call and
requiring thoughtful comments on it. No matter how the changes were
made, classing that amount of new text as merely 'editorial' as Stephen
has done, is absurd.
And for at least the last two versions of the document, the author
provided no audit of what prompted the changes, relative to the comments
he received. Rather, those with concerns were each left to do their own
audit. Each time.
I agree that this is not good process, which is the responsibility of the draft's AD to adjust or advise.
2. Just in this recent versions, there has been a range of
substantive concerns raised. None has received substantive responses,
and especially not from the document author.
Stephen is classing these as nitpicking. Others got fond of
classing them as bikeshedding. All of this serves to marginalize
serious comments from serious participants. Again, it's been the
pattern throughout the life of this document.
I don't know what serious participants mean, I need clear suggestions from serious participants. If a serious participant says "the draft is difficult to read" that is not serious. If a serious participant says "the draft's terms need change" without giving changes, that is not serious. We need to get efforts clear in IETF for progress. IMHO I see many of your serious participants not serious in giving clear points, and I may be wrong.
A brief list of pointers to exemplar messages is at the end of
this note. (And these are only drawn from the latest rounds with the
draft, but the pattern extends to its beginning.)
I read the points but they are difficult to understand, I need clear recommendations of changes per text.
3. The author and quite a few others continue to demonstrate very
basic confusion about use of the term. If even they cannot use it
consistently and provide an explanation that matches that use, then what
is the benefit of the term?
The author's use of the term "opportunistic DANE" is an example of
the confusion. "Opportunistic TLS" probably makes sense. Opportunistic
DANE does not.
This is clear point but you need to recommend clearly to change to "opportunistic TLS" . Each point discussed separately will help focus.
Suggestion:
Merely as a basic exercise to create some semblance of legitimate
IETF constructive discussion, I suggest that the author be directed to
respond to at least the list of postings provided below and to engage
meaningfully in resolving the concerns expressed in them.
My experience with authors show that IETF still needs training for authors and editors. The ADs and WG chairs are responsible for such problem. Your suggestion point above is not only for this draft but for the process of LCs. Again I need clear suggestion for the draft because my responsibility is only to vote on your points in this LC.
Best Regards,
AB
/