Subject: [saag] Barry Leiba's No Record on draft-dukhovni-opportunistic-security-04: (with COMMENT)

From: "Barry Leiba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 01:28:38 -0700

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-dukhovni-opportunistic-security-04: No Record

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dukhovni-opportunistic-security/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm going to press "defer" on this, because I have concerns about the
consensus here, and because of the IGF meeting I won't have time to chase
it down and satisfy myself.

Primary among my concerns is this: really, none of us would be happy
accepting a document with *that* much text changing after last call,
without a second last call.  I know you think it's just editorial stuff,
and I know you think another last call will just bring up all the same
issues that got set aside last time (legitimately or not).  And, yet,
c'mon: can you honestly say that you'd be happy if another document, one
that you weren't involved in, was essentially re-written after last call?

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 11:53:28 +0100

Hiya,

> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dukhovni-opportunistic-security/

Deferring is no big deal. There's nothing waiting on this that's
in a rush. I do however hope that you'll now join me in fending
off any further attempts to regurgitate already digested topics:-)

> that you weren't involved in, was essentially re-written after last call?

Bit of a multi-pronged answer, but since this is, I think, a
slightly odd case, I'll give you all the prongs that I can
think of right now.

First, I am not happy that this draft has (needlessly IMO) required
so much effort. So unhappy is the starting state, but for a
different reason:-)

As to the diff between -03 and -04: I'm happy that it is purely
editorial - if you don't judge by the red/green colour of the diff,
of what is now an 11 page draft, but read the altered text, then
you'll see that -04 has some more text, along the lines suggested
on the list, and is otherwise an almost paragraph-by-paragraph
paraphrase of -03. If you read all the list traffic, I think you'll
also agree that those changes do respect the comments received.

And I'd guess that, like me, your trip through the feast of last
call messages may also convince you that additional time to comment
is only likely to result in additional (not all good tempered)
nitpicking and also (probably increasingly less good-tempered)
responses to that and to continued repetitive expression of in-the-
roughness, for those who remain in the rough. I'll also note in
passing that the LC was already extended once to give folks time
to comment on -03 which was published at the end of the original
LC. And additionally, having just checked again, I don't myself
see any very important changes between -02, -03 and -04 - there
are different numbers of different words in a different order,
but they all say the same thing really.

The above is slightly unusual, but there's another odd aspect
to this draft - if one understands what is going on here, (which
is a little, but not a lot, subtle) it doesn't really matter that
the definition or descriptive text in the draft is at all precise.
The existence of this RFC with pretty much any non-crazy descriptive
text will have just as much (good, bad or indifferent) effect as
any other RFC describing the same concept, no matter how polished
the text in the latter might be. That is partly why what might
otherwise not be considered editorial change, is purely editorial
change in this case. (BTW I believe this is partly why some folks
remain in the rough - they'd prefer a different RFC and not just
one that defines/describes OS for an IETF readership as is the
case here. And before you ask, I do not think those in the rough
in that way have the same "other RFC" in mind so that's not likely
to be a productive avenue of discussion.)

And lastly, I fully admit to a personal preference to not cater
for nitpicking and issue-regurgitation as has been seen here. I
think appeasing such, irrespective of source or motive, significantly
disrespects our processes and IETF participants and is something
that we (for at least we==IESG) ought actively and visibly push
back against, when we're convinced that's what's going on. None
of that btw impugns the motives of those commenting - we all get
carried away now and then, and sometimes we just feel strongly
about stuff. So in yet another odd way, doing what seems easier
and more process-pure (further extending the LC) would actually
be less respectful of our processes, is my conclusion.

So to directly answer your question: if you or another AD did
something similar, I'd not be unhappy, but I would be pretty
curious and would take the time to check it out, just as you're
doing.

Cheers,
S.

PS: All that said, its up to you and the other IESG folks to
(dis)agree with the above and its entirely fine with me if you
look stuff over and come to different conclusions. Once you've
done that we'll chat about it and doing so in a couple of weeks
is just as good as this week.

PPS: And for folks on the saag list, as I said before, there's
no need to respond here unless your response is really really
necessary.

> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> saag mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag
>