Subject: [weirds] Barry Leiba's Abstain on draft-ietf-weirds-object-inventory-06: (with COMMENT)

From: "Barry Leiba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 09:54:43 -0700

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-weirds-object-inventory-06: Abstain

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-ietf-weirds-object-inventory/

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

I see no value in publishing this document as an RFC.  I think it would
be great to keep the information in the wiki for all to peruse, but I
don't think anyone will want to read the RFC a year from now, much less
several years from now.  But I understand that this has been discussed
and decided, so I will accept that I'm in the rough, and will abstain.

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 06:57:02 -0700

[Cc'ing Alissa directly as well]

I do want to point out the text in the ballot:

    Early discussion of the document centered around whether to publish
    it at all.  Consensus of the WG is that this is useful work to record
    as it draws a line from WHOIS to RDAP explaining some of the choices
    found in other documents.  It may also be referenced by ICANN work as
    their policies transition from WHOIS to RDAP.

which is itself a slight modification of the shepherd writeup:

    Early discussion of the document centered around whether to publish
    it at all.  After discussion with our Area Director who really forced
    the WG to consider that question, consensus of the WG is that this is
    useful work to record as it draws a line from WHOIS to RDAP
    explaining some of the choices found in other documents.  It may also
    be referenced by ICANN work as their policies transition from WHOIS
    to RDAP.

It is the last sentence that convinced me not to hold up the document. 
Would adding such information to the top of the document change either 
of your ballots?

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 09:59:50 -0400

> It is the last sentence that convinced me not to hold up the document. Would
> adding such information to the top of the document change either of your
> ballots?

It might, indeed.  But it doesn't matter, unless you just don't like
having any ABSTAIN ballots on principle.

Barry