Subject: [Last-Call] Iotdir last call review of draft-rsalz-2028bis-05

From: Ted Lemon via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2022 05:05:04 -0800

Reviewer: Ted Lemon
Review result: Almost Ready

Reviewer: Ted Lemon
Review result: Almost Ready

I reviewed this document as part of the IoT Directorate's effort to IoT-related
IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written
primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document authors,
document editors, and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other
IETF Last Call comments.

This document is clear and readable, and appears to cover the topics it set out
to cover thoroughly, with one exception. I've marked it "almost ready" because
of one specific issue which I will call out first; I've also included some nits
that might be worth addressing.

The main issue that I'd like to call out is that in general each role that's
described in this document has a section just for that role, but there's one
exception: the RSCE. The RSCE is just mentioned in the section on the RPC. If
for no other reason that this results in the RSCE not showing up in the table
of contents, I think this should be corrected. The current text describing the
RSCE also doesn't give me any idea of what the RSCE specifically does, as
opposed to "all parties" or other "member[s] of the advisory board." I think
this description needs to be expanded upon at least to the point where the
reader understands how the RSCE differs from other participants. In addition,
"all parties" isn't explained, so I don't actually know who "all parties"
includes. I think this should be clarified.

Similarly, the RSWG and RSAB are only mentioned in the RPC section, and
probably ought to have sections of their own, even if no further description is
given. I think it would be good to add a bit more descriptive text about these
two organizations, however.

In addition, I encountered a few puzzles as I was reading:

In section 3.1, IETF, a list of potential IETF participants is given. Two
things about this list puzzle me. First, one role explicitly called out is
"vendor." I think this sends the wrong message, since IETF members participate
as individuals, not as representatives of companies. It's true that "vendors"
send representatives to IETF, but these representatives are obliged to
participate as individuals, and generally speaking have specific individual
roles that I think are more interesting than the "vendor" role. The specific
example of such a role I think should be mentioned is "implementor." I think
this is a fairly serious omission, although I wouldn't go so far as to say that
it must be corrected.

In the last paragraph of section 3.2, "Working Groups," the term "technically
superior" is used to describe the protocols and services the IETF aspires to
standardize. I think this is a bit misleading. I can remember numerous cases
where several solutions were available for a specific problem, and where the
"technically superior" distinction was not useful in deciding between them. I
think "technically excellent" might be a better choice of words here.

In section 3.5, the term "open group" is used to describe the RSWG. Hm, I'm
realizing that like the RSCE, this should be in its own section, so that it
shows up in the TOC. Anyway, the point being, it would be good to say what
"open" means here. I think it means open in the same sense that the IETF is
open, so perhaps a reference to the IETF would work here.

In section 3.7, the distinction "shorter term" and "longer term" are used to
distinguish between IRTF groups and IETF groups. I don't think that's really a
necessarily valid distinction, although I agree that it tends generally to
hold. I think the actual dichotomy is "research into insufficiently
well-understood topics" as opposed to "practical issues of engineering and
standards-making." I would suggest tweaking this text to avoid the short
term/long term distinction, since I think it doesn't do a good job of
illuminating the difference between the IRTF and IETF.  The other text about
the distinctions between the two organizations seems fine.

Thanks for doing this work, and for the clear and readable writing—the document
was easy to read and review.

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2022 15:00:59 +0000

Thanks for the detailed review.  Sorry for the absurdly high quoted/new-text ratio, but I didn't feel comfortable trimming your feedback.
TL;DR.  here are the changes I made:
; g diff
diff --git a/draft-rsalz-2028bis.md b/draft-rsalz-2028bis.md
index 6d26df3..3c74504 100644
--- a/draft-rsalz-2028bis.md
+++ b/draft-rsalz-2028bis.md
@@ -152,7 +152,7 @@ the Internet standards process.
 ## Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
 
 The IETF is an open international
-community of network designers, operators, vendors, researchers,
+community of network designers, operators, implementors, researchers,
 and other interested parties who are
 concerned with the evolution of the Internet architecture and the
 smooth operation of the Internet.  It is the principal body engaged
@@ -254,7 +254,8 @@ charter {{IAB}}.
 
 Publication of RFCs is handled by the RFC Production Center (RPC), including
 editorial preparation and publication.  RFC policy is defined by the RFC
-Series Working Group (RSWG), an open group, and approved by the RFC Advisory
+Series Working Group (RSWG), an open group (like all IETF Working Groups),
+and approved by the RFC Advisory
 Board (RSAB), which has appointed members.  The RFC Series Consulting Editor
 (RSCE) is a position funded by the IETF LLC, with responsibilities to consult
 with all parties, and be a member of the advisory board.

I disagree that the RSCE deserves a separate section from the RPC.  I think the fact that (like all other sections), there is a pointer to full details, mitigates your other concerns.  The main point is that this document is about the standards process, in particular for any specific document. It doesn't discuss, the ISE, the IESG's role in setting policy, etc.

I changed vendor to implementor.  Good point!

    standardize

There are always exceptions.  Given the "ideally" I think this is fine as-is. Sure it's a bit of Kool Aide.

I think compared to "appointed" in the following sentence it's clear, but I am probably too close to the text. I will add
	An open group (like all IETF working groups)

That text comes from the current IRTF chair.