Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Draft submission interlude

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 10:49:57 -0500

Le 2014-11-04 à 10:31, Jefsey <[email-masked]> a écrit :
> 
> Dear Chairs,
> I just discovered a cute IETF trick. One cannot submit drafts during the last-call period if adequately chosen :-)

these dates are unrelated. Moreover, the chairs proposed the timeline during the Interim meeting and people agreed on the timeline. 

Marc.

> 
> IETF:
>> The cut-off time for the I-D submission was 00h UTC, 2014-10-28.
>> The I-D submission tool will be reopened at 00h local time at the IETF meeting location, 2014-11-10.
> 
> Chair:
>> given the proposed timeline agreed during our last interim meeting and based on that the outstanding issues should have been addressed in the -02 version, this message starts a working group last call on draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02.  This working group last call will end november 11, 23h59 UTC. Given that our meeting is scheduled on november 10th, it would be useful if people send their comments prior to the meeting so they can be addressed or discussed before or during the meeting.
> 
> Should I add the draft to my appeal ?
> What is the most constructive solution that will not irritate my co-writers?
> 
> jfc 
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 17:57:36 +0100

At 16:49 04/11/2014, Marc Blanchet wrote:
> > I just discovered a cute IETF trick. One cannot submit drafts 
> during the last-call period if adequately chosen :-)
>
>these dates are unrelated. Moreover, the chairs proposed the 
>timeline during the Interim meeting and people agreed on the timeline.

Yes.
This is why it is a cute trick by the stakeholders who know about 
IETF details, have paid time to attend Interim meetings, and - as 
John enlighted it - share the ICANN reading. A majority occlusion 
smart trick. MOST.

>Marc

Charter says; "Should proposals made by other communities regarding 
the transition of other IANA functions affect the IETF protocol 
parameter registries or the IETF, the WG may also review and comment 
on them.". You said you read the "may" as a "will".

But the Last-call will be finished before I can post the proposals 
I_D. So, I have asked the chairs what is the most productive way to 
patch the difficulty.

You give the feeling there is none. This is not really motivating for 
my team. An incentive for a stand-alone MYCANN plug-in development 
rather than  the cooperation I try to motivate.
jfc

>.
> >> given the proposed timeline agreed during our last interim 
> meeting and based on that the outstanding issues should have been 
> addressed in the -02 version, this message starts a working group 
> last call on draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02.  This working 
> group last call will end november 11, 23h59 UTC. Given that our 
> meeting is scheduled on november 10th, it would be useful if people 
> send their comments prior to the meeting so they can be addressed 
> or discussed before or during the meeting.
> >

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 12:21:08 -0500

On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 05:57:36PM +0100, Jefsey wrote:
> This is why it is a cute trick by the stakeholders who know about IETF
> details

I think you're making an unwarranted _ad hominem_ attack.  This is not
some conspiracy.  The important dates around IETF meetings are
well-publicised well in advance.

It could well be true that there are participants in this discussion
that are unfamiliar with those details of IETF processes.  I find it
virtually impossible to believe that M. Morfin, who has exercised
several parts of the IETF procedures repeatedly, is so uninformed.

> But the Last-call will be finished before I can post the proposals I_D. So,
> I have asked the chairs what is the most productive way to patch the
> difficulty.

Why don't you outline _briefly_ your views in a mail to the list, note
that you missed the posting deadline, put your draft up somewhere
else, and post your draft as soon as posting is permitted again next
Monday?  The usual way to respond to a last call is not an alternative
draft, but if you think the existing draft is really that bad the
usual way is in fact to respond to the last call by saying, "This is
so bad that I will offer a completely alternative proposal."

If that's _not_ what you're saying, then you can provide detailed
comments to the list, and not an alternative draft.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 19:41:52 +0100

At 18:21 04/11/2014, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>I think you're making an unwarranted _ad hominem_ attack.

No. It is the sophomore's dicovery of a astute trick that experienced 
chairs and draft writers most probably know quite well.

>This is not

Frankly, Andrew, I am not that much interested in IETF meetings and 
never realized that the IETF contributions were frozen for two weeks 
everytime of few people where paid a travel to drink a few beers together.

>several parts of the IETF procedures repeatedly, is so uninformed.

My experience with the IETF is much more with appeals than with Drafts.
Drafts are subject to BCP 78 copyright and I am a Libre person 
believing in Creative Commons.

I am however surprised that people who are familiar as you are and 
others here, never warned me while I repatedly said I will introduce 
a draft and an appeal once the debate would have produced enough 
inputs for my contribution to be the most constructive withn the 
allowed time bracket (before Nov 8 for appealing the charter, Nov 20 
for appealing the Chair's reading of the Charter).

You will note that the Draft under last-call was introduced the last 
possible day.
So everyone was aware of the date constraint when it was decided 
(what seems normal as most will travel to the IETF meeting).

>Monday?

This is what I am unfortunately going to do if there is no other alternative.
However, since my Draft substantially differs from the only one 
discussed by the WG, was annouced well in advance, and parallels with 
an appeal, many will take it as a vexation, Something I did not 
intend. So, the best is to take it with a smile as I do in order to 
calm people down, those who accepted to share in a positive draft and 
who are upset tonight.

>  The usual way to respond to a last call is not an alternative

This is something I politely and exactly announced a long ago.
My concern is that my position is a compromise that was difficult to 
obtain and which also depends on Busan parallel talks and votes. Do 
you know what happens on Nov 10th when I am supposed to be able to 
introduced the Dratf?

>comments to the list, and not an alternative draft.

I did that, too.
But who cares? The list is so deeply attached to what I/we consider 
as an inadequate reading of the Charte and of the real world 
situation that I need to appeal it to have no regret.

I just tried to cooperatively contribute to a more realistic 
understanding of my own world's position and orientation.
After all this may help on the long range to better understand that 
we cannot mutually easily understand between global communities.

No offence taken, but somewhat tired :-) ...

jfc

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 13:48:00 -0500

On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 07:41:52PM +0100, Jefsey wrote:
> I am however surprised that people who are familiar as you are and others
> here, never warned me while I repatedly said I will introduce a draft and an
> appeal once the debate would have produced enough inputs for my contribution
> to be the most constructive withn the allowed time bracket 

I can't speak for others, but the number of times I've heard people
say "I will introduce a draft" and nothing happened (indeed, the
number of times I've done that myself) makes me completely ignore such
remarks.  Don't tell me you will write a draft.  Write one.

I still have no idea, frankly, what your problem is.  You have
basically two options.  One is to respond to the extant WG draft,
identifying sections and writing perhaps a paragraph about why such
sections are bad, and noting that you think an entirely different
proposal is in order.  You could even put a sketch of such a proposal
together.  See whether people like it.  Alternatively, you can offer
text for the _particular bits_ that you think problematic.

> the WG, was annouced well in advance

There is exactly one way to announce a draft: upload it to the I-D
repository.  Everything else is just announcement of possible future
states that might never happen.
 
> No offence taken, but somewhat tired :-) ...

That makes two of us, but perhaps for different reasons.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]