Subject: Re: draft-ietf-pkix-sonof3039 is Approved

From: Denis Pinkas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 17:58:59 +0100

Russ,

> Denis:

> After WG Last Call was closed, you submitted 38 comments.  These 
> comments were not ignored, they were considered during IETF Last Call.  
> Stefan Santesson posted a detailed response of each of your comments on 
> January 30th.  This message was sent to PKIX mail list.

> Stefan met with you in Barcelona during the ETSI meeting and explained 
> the changes that were made.  Stefan reported that you seemed happy,

Stefan made a wrong report.

The best way to ask if someone is pleased or not is to ask him, and wait for 
the reply (or else use an acknowledge of receipt and wait). At the Barcelona 
meeting, Stefan DID know that I was not pleased with the resolution he 
proposed to many of my comments.

I offered him to discuss the comments during the evenings, but Stefan 
prefred to go hiking in the evening on the Barcelona hills.

Fine it is his choice. I also proposed Thursday, but Stefan prefered to take 
a flight on the Wednesday evening. It was HIS choice, not mine.

In th eonly "evening" (he left at 5:20 p.m.) he ahd available Stefan wanted 
to give priority to discuss the ISO DTC 6 about X.509 with Jane Hill, so we 
spent the time he had available only on that topic. We did not discussed my 
comments on sonof3039.

> except you expressed a wish to add something to the security 
> considerations section.  Stefan asked for you to contribute text, but it 
> never came, well at least not before today.

I do not have such a request from Stefan.

> Steve Kent sent the attached note confirming that the PKIX WG had 
> reached consensus.  Steve confirms that all of you comments were 
> considered, although not all of them were accepted.

I have not seen nor received the note from Steve since it was not posted to 
the PKIX Mailing list !

> The revised document was posted as draft-ietf-pkix-sonof3039-05, and 
> that document was reviewed by the IESG for the telechat last Thursday.  

I have not been informed.

> The IESG approved the document, with one point needing to be cleared 
> up.  That point was cleared up last Saturday.
> 
> The secretariat should be sending an approval announcement today.

> If you were not happy with the way that your comments were handled, you 
> should have spoken up long before today.

I do not think that Stefan made a fair report of what happened in Barcelona.
So what follows is not a fair process.

The usual procedure is to try to solve all comments, and this process takes 
some time.

So why is this draft going so fast while others are waiting months or even 
years for approval ? Is it because ... ?

I also notice that the mail from Steve is on February 2, so well BEFORE the 
Barcelona meeting which finished on February 12 th.

Coming back on the mailing list 11 days after the end of that meeting seems 
perfectly reasonable to me.

I would like you to report these facts at the IESG level and that the IESG, 
taking notice of these *facts*, reconsiders his position.

Denis

> Russ
> 
> 
>> Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:46:43 -0500
>> To: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
>> From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
>> Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pkix-sonof3039-03.txt
>> Cc: "Stefan Santesson" <[email-masked]>, "Tim Polk" 
>> <[email-masked]>,
>>    "Magnus Nystrom" <[email-masked]>, Stephen  Kent 
>> <[email-masked]>
>>
>> Russ,
>>
>>>
>>>> Would this be OK or do I need to get consensus with Denis an all 38
>>>> items on the list :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> We need Tim and Steve to be involved in this process.  They are the 
>>> ones that need to determine 'rough consensus' for this document.  I 
>>> need to be satisfied that Last Call comments have been considered and 
>>> resolved without breaking the rough consensus.  To this end, I want 
>>> to see a response to each comment posted to the PKIX list. This will 
>>> allow others to object if the change breaks the consensus.
>>
>>
>> I am satisfied that the WG, based on the mail on the list, is 
>> satisfied with the version of 3039bis that we now have.  Denis's 
>> issues have been dealt with, or at least considered, and we can proceed.
>>
>> Steve
>>
> 
>

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:36:26 -0500

Denis:

I am simply reporting the events as I understand them.

I know that Steve Kent's message to me came prior to the meeting in 
Barcelona.  My understanding of the face-to-face meeting between you and 
Stefan was simply a matter of lucky scheduling.  The two of you happened to 
be at the same place at the same time at a non-IETF related event.  This 
situation allowed Stefan to review how each of the comments was handled -- 
accepted or rejected.  The point was to make sure you were aware of the 
ones that were rejected, and that you were happy with the wording of the 
ones that were accepted.

Prior to meeting with you, Stefan sent me a note indicating that he would 
do so:

 > Denis is here at ETSI and he approached me indicating that he want to 
discuss
 > these issues but I fear that we won't be able to come to a mutual 
agreement here
 > and now on every single bit. I will listen to him and see if there is 
anything he can
 > add to this that makes sense. <snip>
 > I will let you know about any change proposals as a result of my 
discussion with
 > Denis so that you can approve or reject them before publication of draft 05.

This seems like a very reasonable approach, especially since IETF Last Call 
had already closed without any response to the comment resolution 
message.  As I have already stated, the message about your comments was 
sent to the PKIX mail list on January 30th.

I placed this document on the IESG telechat agenda on February 12th.  At no 
time between January 30th and today did you send a message to the PKIX mail 
list, the PKIX WG chair, or me indicating that you were unhappy with the 
way your comments were handled.

The timing of the Barcelona meeting is irrelevant to these key dates.

Steve Kent's message was a response to a query from Stefan to me.  I was 
clear that it is up to the WG Chair to determine consensus.  Steve did so, 
after IETF Last Call ended.  And from Steve's message, it is clear that he 
understood that some of your comments were being rejected.

Russ

At 05:58 PM 2/23/2004 +0100, Denis Pinkas wrote:
>Russ,
>
>>Denis:
>
>>After WG Last Call was closed, you submitted 38 comments.  These comments 
>>were not ignored, they were considered during IETF Last Call.
>The best way to ask if someone is pleased or not is to ask him, and wait 
>for the reply (or else use an acknowledge of receipt and wait). At the 
>Barcelona meeting, Stefan DID know that I was not pleased with the 
>resolution he proposed to many of my comments.
>
>Fine it is his choice. I also proposed Thursday, but Stefan prefered to 
>take a flight on the Wednesday evening. It was HIS choice, not mine.
>
>In th eonly "evening" (he left at 5:20 p.m.) he ahd available Stefan 
>wanted to give priority to discuss the ISO DTC 6 about X.509 with Jane 
>Hill, so we spent the time he had available only on that topic. We did not 
>discussed my comments on sonof3039.
>
>>Steve Kent sent the attached note confirming that the PKIX WG had reached 
>>consensus.  Steve confirms that all of you comments were considered, 
>>although not all of them were accepted.
>
>I have not seen nor received the note from Steve since it was not posted 
>to the PKIX Mailing list !
>
>>The revised document was posted as draft-ietf-pkix-sonof3039-05, and that 
>>document was reviewed by the IESG for the telechat last Thursday.
>
>The usual procedure is to try to solve all comments, and this process 
>takes some time.
>
>I also notice that the mail from Steve is on February 2, so well BEFORE 
>the Barcelona meeting which finished on February 12 th.
>
>Coming back on the mailing list 11 days after the end of that meeting 
>seems perfectly reasonable to me.
>
>I would like you to report these facts at the IESG level and that the 
>IESG, taking notice of these *facts*, reconsiders his position.
>
>Denis

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:38:52 -0500

Denis,

In the case of this document you have made a number of comments in 
the past (going back to at least March or 2003) and Stefan has 
responded to them, many more than once.  We are aware that not all of 
his responses have been to your satisfaction. In fact, your have even 
questioned the need to revise the extant RFC. However, the WG chairs 
have not seen any substantive comments re these residual issues from 
any other WG members. We thus determined that there was WG consensus, 
and notified the ADs accordingly.

Steve