Subject: [Iasa20] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7776bis-02: (with DISCUSS)

From: Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 07:07:42 -0700

Magnus Westerlund has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7776bis-02: Discuss

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 https://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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7776bis/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't understand why not a replacement for RFC7776 was produced instead of
this soup that is not readable. Publishing this in this form is providing very
mixed messages to the community where we (IESG) apparently are aiming for
readability and ease of comparing older and newer documents, but can't be
bothered to ensure that is produced when it comes to the process documents.
Also RFC 7776 appears to be very self contained and with removal of content
that will be even more true.

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 15:18:39 +0100

Hi Magnus,

Not sure how the authors can address your Discuss.

We were tasked by the WG to produce this document in this form and specifically to not open the existing document even for restrained edits. I think this arose because the WG interpreted its charter very strictly and did not want to risk any other change sneaking in.

It would, of course, be basically simply editorial to revise 7776 and, since that was an AD sponsored piece of work, we could do that instead or as well.

I'm sure the editors remain at the service of the community, but it would be nice to not have to do the work twice.

Best,
Adrian

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 14:32:54 +0000

Hi, 

Sorry, this discuss may have been a bit grumpy. Having not paid
attention to the IASA 2.0 effort I don't understand the motivation for
why the document is proposed to be published in this form. Applying
these changes to RFC 7776 and submitting that a draft do looks rather
straight forward, and adding a changes section pointing out the reason
for the changes is all that should be needed. So what am I missing
here? 

Cheers

Magnus

On Wed, 2019-09-04 at 07:07 -0700, Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker
wrote:
> Please refer to 
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
-- 
Cheers

Magnus Westerlund 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Network Architecture & Protocols, Ericsson Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 10:46:50 -0400

Hi Magnus,

> On Sep 4, 2019, at 10:32 AM, Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi, 
> 

As with several other IASA2 drafts, the fear was that these documents would be difficult to republish without opening other substantive issues unrelated to the IASA 2.0 changes. We barely got 7437bis approved for this reason, for example. The approach for the IASA2 documents was decided long before the IESG began discussing the topics in draft-roach-bis-documents.

With 7776bis, there was some WG discussion about incorporating its text into draft-ietf-iasa2-consolidated-upd — which also takes the OLD/NEW approach and has been approved for publication — but the WG chose to leave it stand-alone. 7776bis involves slightly more complicated changes than the other documents that draft-ietf-iasa2-consolidated-upd deals with.

Best,
Alissa

> _______________________________________________
> iasa20 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20

---

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 12:23:15 -0500

Magnus,

Yes, in fact the idea of doing a new obsoletes-7776 version was the 
first suggestion, which was subsequently waived off by the WG and the 
responsible AD. But as Adrian points out, your comment is a strictly on 
the editorial choice and readability of the document, which is quite 
explicitly a non-criteria for a DISCUSS. That said, a similar comment to 
yours was made in the GenART review during Last Call on the main IETF 
list, and there have been several ADs who have also so commented, so 
perhaps you are claiming that there was no consensus and therefore this 
should be DISCUSSed. Your ballot does not make clear who needs to 
address this problem: Is it the authors (in which case we need more 
guidance) or is it the responsible AD (in which case we will wait for 
the outcome)?

pr

On 4 Sep 2019, at 9:18, Adrian Farrel wrote:

> We were tasked by the WG to produce this document in this form and 
> specifically to not open the existing document even for restrained 
> edits. I think this arose because the WG interpreted its charter very 
> strictly and did not want to risk any other change sneaking in.
>
> It would, of course, be basically simply editorial to revise 7776 and, 
> since that was an AD sponsored piece of work, we could do that instead 
> or as well.
>
> I'm sure the editors remain at the service of the community, but it 
> would be nice to not have to do the work twice.
>
> Best,
> Adrian
>
> Cc: [email-masked]; Jon Peterson 
> <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; 
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on 
> draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7776bis-02: (with DISCUSS)
>

-- 
Pete Resnick http://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 13:38:06 -0400

Pete, I have no issue with your conclusion, and I don't think we
should block this document... but there's one thing you say:

> your comment is a strictly on
> explicitly a non-criteria for a DISCUSS.

Where in the DISCUSS non-criteria
<https://www.ietf.org/blog/discuss-criteria-iesg-review/> does it say
that *readability* of the document is out of bounds?  I certainly hope
that's not true.  On the other hand, the first DISCUSS criterion
refers to "clarity issues" and the second that "the description is
unclear in such a way that the reader cannot understand it without
ambiguity."

As I noted in my (non-DISCUSS) ballot, I think the attempt to change
the metadata in this way is hard to follow, and is therefore a poor
choice, and I suspect that's where Magnus is as well.

I don't care about this further for this document, as I hope Magnus
will clear his DISCUSS after this discussion and we'll go forward.
But I would hate to leave us with the idea that we can't DISCUSS a
document because of serious readability issues.

Barry

---

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 12:50:23 -0500

On 4 Sep 2019, at 12:38, Barry Leiba wrote:

> that's not true.

• Stylistic issues of any kind. The IESG are welcome to copy-edit as 
a non-blocking comment, but this should not obstruct document 
processing.

Now, if Magnus really means that the document is literally unreadable, 
that a reader truly couldn't figure out what was meant, I absolutely 
agree that would be DISCUSSable. But I took him as being a little more 
metaphorical by saying, "soup that is not readable".

> On the other hand, the first DISCUSS criterion
> refers to "clarity issues"

Clarity issues which make it "impossible to implement", not just any 
clarity issues. "Impossible" seems a pretty strong word.

> and the second that "the description is

Again, this comes down to "cannot understand". If that's really what 
Magnus means, then DISCUSS away.

(I will note that another non-criteria is:

• Reiteration of the issues that have been raised and discussed as 
part of WG or IETF Last Call, unless the AD believes they have not been 
properly addressed.

Again, the caveat at the end might be reasonable, but Magnus didn't make 
that clear.)

> choice, and I suspect that's where Magnus is as well.

I don't disagree with you or he on the point. I had the XML for 7776 
dusted off and ready to go when we were told to go in this other 
direction. As Adrian said, we are willing to take a change in direction 
if that is the IESG decision.

> document because of serious readability issues.

For large values of "serious", no doubt. I take that to mean, "anything 
that cannot be safely fixed by the RFC Editor and leaves the document 
non-understandable".

pr

>>> mixed messages to the community where we (IESG) apparently are 
>>> aiming
>>> for
>>> readability and ease of comparing older and newer documents, but 
>>> can't
>>> be

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 07:06:54 +0000

Hi,

I will clear but, I think the IESG very much needs a to have a
discussion on this topic. And I wouldn't be surprised if that needs to
then continue with the community. And I think the charter or WG
decision to make a old new style changes document here was very much
the wrong approach. Not having engaged I have a hard time to believe
that the constraints to only do necessary for a specific topic of
changes should be sufficient for the WG, and the IESG. 

If the IESG has problems keeping its fingers from discussing /
commenting that implies changes outside of the scope of the charter for
changes then we have a real problem with being dammed either way. 

Cheers

Magnus

On Wed, 2019-09-04 at 12:50 -0500, Pete Resnick wrote:
> > > responsible AD. But as Adrian points out, your comment is a
> > > strictly 
> > > on
> > > explicitly a non-criteria for a DISCUSS. That said, a similar
> > > comment 
> > > to
> > > perhaps you are claiming that there was no consensus and
> > > therefore 
> > > this
> > > > edits. I think this arose because the WG interpreted its
> > > > charter 
> > > > very
> > > > It would, of course, be basically simply editorial to revise
> > > > 7776 
> > > > and,
> > > > 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
> > > > I don't understand why not a replacement for RFC7776 was
> > > > produced
> > > > instead of
> > > > bothered to ensure that is produced when it comes to the
> > > > process
> > > > documents.
> > > > Also RFC 7776 appears to be very self contained and with
> > > > removal of
> > > > content
-- 
Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2019 00:38:06 -0700

Hi Magnus,
>that will be even more true.

I took a look at draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7776bis-02.  The document is 
equivalent the difference between two text files.  That difference, 
also known as a "patch", is in general not easily understood.

As a comment about procedures, the DISCUSS criteria is not ideally 
suited for non-technical documents.  There was an interesting comment 
[1] during the Last Call.  The comment was likely not addressed as it 
was not listed as an issue.

Several months ago [2], I provided a pointer to the RFC 7776 
procedures.  I'll probably do the same in future, if the need arises, 
as I don't think that a person who is not familiar with the arcanes 
of the IETF would understand this draft.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/OoEGZvw5Sb1Ngq0FFPVmK4KVwxw
2. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/naVOBpkJw0Ar-J-v55mKgttPKbU

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 09:40:39 -0400

Hi Magnus,

> On Sep 5, 2019, at 3:06 AM, Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I will clear

Thanks!

> but, I think the IESG very much needs a to have a

Given that this is the last document the WG will progress, there isn’t anything further to discuss on this topic in this WG. It seems like the focus of the more general discussions should be draft-roach-bis-documents.

Alissa