IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] On "supporting the publication of this document"

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 10 May 2011 18:13 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 631A1E083E for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 May 2011 11:13:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.127
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.127 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.471, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n4bMvi0QGPWh for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 May 2011 11:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pw0-f44.google.com (mail-pw0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD467E067C for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 May 2011 11:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pwi5 with SMTP id 5so3966954pwi.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 May 2011 11:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=wkAP/wds7TXQdYi7yjROTRxL60eo0A49eNl3HuGb6Ks=; b=hyF/9r4J3rpwwAc7WxZwAb28fWzMmcjkmb5dTHjZ5mNPfN6HzwHYaw0Suo7bs7OSzf pSdNDoQ0Ah1jE0eniuDkhLbrbfbv7Li46gAxG3DkhT6KCtmMFJ6rM8Ra1NauOT7RcWP3 81TGQ4JZZ5J0cjLyO+ehtzONoKKFlIT30/Qkg=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=GPsoeNKQD7toBf/3vNsq0sNUByeuEbq1wYcBupGZbotyGwHmHtIGTNML0THx1XulSu 0T/RB0xBpV0n3ZuhXF82PvnylF/R//1wNGbiq0JW3ZjFzY7r02tqU8tGgVdk2EX8P6J8 wv4vYJBhF8pnBfjasovZu1s1Esi/QSbvhonzQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.55.10 with SMTP id n10mr11084493pbp.476.1305051225013; Tue, 10 May 2011 11:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.51.198 with HTTP; Tue, 10 May 2011 11:13:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4DC9688B.3070701@qualcomm.com>
References: <4DC88255.3070403@qualcomm.com> <4DC94F74.30905@dcrocker.net> <4DC9688B.3070701@qualcomm.com>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 11:13:44 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=EmKb+6o8yyTPeH8Y4=H9cy5+SXw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec53aec2eae3f7604a2efea15"
Cc: dcrocker@bbiw.net, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] On "supporting the publication of this document"
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 18:13:46 -0000

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com> wrote:

>
> It is a concern, but see Scott and SM's notes: Saying "I have read and
> support the publication of this document" is indistinguishable from, "My
> co-worker/friend/third-cousin-twice-removed told me I should send in a
> message supporting this document, so I did." All I'm saying is that
> additional text indicating *why* you support this document is the important
> part. Your statement of support is, in and of itself, relatively
> uninteresting.
>
>
>
To put this slightly differently, a statement of support where the AD has no
context is hard to evaluate.  For some people, the AD's knowledge of the
individual is the context.  If Steve Bellovin says he has read and supports
a security document, the AD's knowledge of Steve's history in that space is
probably context enough.  IF you know the individual, in other words, you
know whether they are really speaking for themselves or the
cousin-twice-removed.  But this has some bad scaling problems.

Having someone say something like "I plan to implement this, and I think the
document is good enough for me to do so" or "I have implemented this" is
more data than "I think this is good".   Having them say "This answers
problem FOO which I face, so I will be pointing my vendors to this as a
requirement" is similar.   Saying "I support this over proprietary solution
BAR" hints that the reason is the individual prefers a standards-based
approach to a proprietary one, but it would be even better if they made that
explicit.

Consensus as "no objections heard" is a fine thing, and it is often enough.
We can assume that the original impetus to the work is just carrying through
to delivery.  But when an AD (or the IESG) is trying to gauge whether their
own possible objections should be treated as the rough part of the rough
consensus, concrete statements help a lot.

Just my two cents, of course,

Ted

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email