A big part of the problem I see, which I see addressed by this draft, is
that as currently constituted we can not fix many existing protocols
without doing a major modification to address security and / or privacy
issues.
Hence the bit of text being discussed about not having DISCUSS or
Abstain on the basis of not fixing existing security and privacy issues
is important.
ADs are free to comment, and every WG I have seen takes such comments
seriously. So if the AD thinks there is a simple improvement in
security and / or privacy that ought to be included, they can ask about
it.
Yours,
Joel
On 5/9/19 6:28 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hiya,
I've read the draft and like it except for the bit
SM quotes below.
On 09/05/2019 09:34, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hi Adam,
There is the following sentence in Section 3.2 of
draft-roach-bis-documents-00:
"IESG members SHOULD NOT issue DISCUSS or ABSTAIN ballot positions
based on unchanged text except as described in Section 3.3."
I'm fine with the idea that the IESG would mostly just
review the diff, and the IESG do need to respect the
fact that existing RFC text has IETF consensus, but I
don't think it's ok to try to force ADs to ignore security
or privacy issues that the proponents of a bis would
like to ignore. I read the text above as doing that. I'm
not saying that all such things ought always be fixed in
bis drafts as we clearly do not do that, but a SHOULD NOT
DISCUSS seems wrong.
Separately, if enough ADs ABSTAIN then the draft should
have a problem. ABSTAIN ballots weren't that common when
I was on the IESG so unless that's changed a lot I don't
think that clause is useful or advisable.
So if that text stays in, I would hope that ADs would
ignore it and try do what they consider correct. That may
be another argument to not have a SHOULD NOT - just say
that the goal is to keep reviews to the diff.
Lastly, I'd leave out that text because even if it were
what the IESG wanted, it ought be in the discuss-criteria
IESG statement and not in an RFC/BCP that derives from
this draft. (It is good that it's there now, so I can
whine about it though:-)
Cheers,
S.
Why is an ABSTAIN an issue?
What about IESG member "comments"? Can those comments be ignored?
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
