Re: "Discuss" criteria

[Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com>]

On 2007-01-04 14:32, John Leslie wrote:
>    I should be ashamed of myself -- letting myself get ensnared in a
> flamewar with Keith...
>
>    First, let's restore some context. We're talking about
>
> http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/discuss-criteria.html
>
> specifically section 3.1; and I was taking exception to the last bullet
> in 3.1:
> ] 
> ] The IETF as a whole does not have consensus on the technical approach
> ] or document.
>
> Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu> wrote:
> > [John Leslie wrote]
>
> > > It's high time we gave up any pretense that the "IETF-as-a-whole"
> > > should come to "consensus" about the technical details of RFCs before
> > > they're published.
> > strongly disagree.  I have seen way too many working groups working in 
> > isolation, often deliberately so, and without due regard for the harm 
> > that their work will cause.
>
>    Keith states a problem -- which although many of us might state
> differently, most of us agree is a problem; and then makes a giant leap
> to the conclusion that our defense against this must be to depend upon
> some AD to call for IETF-as-a-whole consensus after the IETF Last-Call
> has failed to turn up any specific issues.

I don't see where you get that from. I can think of two cases where
we might get such an assertion from an AD:

1. The IETF Last Call did generate dissent.

2. The IETF Last Call generated indifference *and* the proposal,
whatever it is, clearly has very wide impact. At that point it
seems perfectly legitimate to question whether people really
know what that have agreed to by their silence. Now, a better way
to handle that is for the concerned AD to send explicit mail
to the community during the last call - but if that hasn't
happened, I don't see anything illegitimate in a DISCUSS asking
for additional community review.

>    I contend that Keith's cure looks worse than the disease. Very often,
> by the time we reach that stage, the  WG has effectively disbanded, 

A working group that has effectively disbanded before its drafts
have been approved? What kind of a WG is that?

> and
> if they haven't, this kind of open-ended, "Somebody somewhere might not
> like this" statement should push them over the edge.

Indeed, that would be a "disconsolate DISCUSS" and not what we aim for.
>    The proper cure for the disease Keith names has been agreed upon for
> years now: early cross-area expert review. 

I fully agree.

> Alas, we don't seem to be
> getting there.

Well, we keep trying, e.g.
http://www1.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/EarlyExternalReview

But the "we" in question is everybody here; as somebody once said:
This Means You.

>    I continue to suggest that this last DISCUSS criteria is wrong.
> Instead we should have something like:
> " 
> " The potential for harm has not been adequately considered. An expert
> " review by [fill in the blank] Area is needed.
>
> (which, BTW, I cannot find in the list in section 3.1).

It certainly happens, although a more common complaint these days
is more like "the issues raised in the XXX review have not been
addressed" (where XXX is sometimes, but not always, security).
I would see such a DISCUSS as being part of a flawed/clarity
DISCUSS rather than standing alone.

However, since the IETF works by consensus, I don't see how we can
take an assertion of non-consensus off the list.

    Brian

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf