Last Call: 'IETF Problem Statement' to Informational RFC

[Alex Conta]

Brian,

If I understand correctly, this document is supposed to be a collection 
of descriptions of problems perceived by the IETF community.

If someone makes comments during the last call (WG or IESG), one obvious 
reason is that it was felt/perceived that the collection is incomplete, 
or one or more descriptions are incomplete. So obviously, 
resolving/including the comments is making the document more complete.

If the goal is to have this document as complete as it can be, and as 
inclusive as it can be, as I think the goal is, I do not understand why 
would one, sharing the same goal, oppose the comment resolution. It is 
true the document is not a standard document, but it is an important 
part and important reference in the work being done to resolve the 
current IETF problems.

Furthermore, I am afraid that an action, that could suggest that this 
document is in reality just a formality, is dangerous, in that would 
undermine the confidence of the IETF community that the IETF management 
is genuine in its leading toward resolving the problems which that 
community perceived.

Regards,
Alex



Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> I too have been frustrated in the past (but not in this case) by
> comments not being accepted by document editors and/or WG chairs.
> But ultimately it is a judgement call: are these commments substantive
> enough to merit a new consensus call, or are they relatively unimportant?
> Whether other people support the comments is a factor in making that judgement.
> So I have some sympathy with a WG chair deciding that last call comments
> that do not attract support on the list can be set aside- but it is
> of course an appealable decision, at least for a standards track document.
> 
> My personal view on the document in question is that we are well
> beyond the point of diminishing returns in tuning the text, and it should
> be published as it is. That doesn't mean that some of the recent comments 
> aren't intrinsically valid - it just isn't worth any more effort. This document
> has largely served its purpose as a draft, and all that is usefully left is to 
> archive it as an RFC.
> 
>    Brian
> 
> Robert Snively wrote:
> 
>>I share Keith's concern, both about the response to
>>his comments, and to the response about my comments
>>from about the same time.
>>
>>Bob Snively
>>+1-408-333-8135
>>
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore at cs.utk.edu]
>>>Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 11:16 AM
>>>To: avri at acm.org
>>>Cc: problem-statement at alvestrand.no; Keith Moore; iesg at ietf.org
>>>Subject: Re: Last Call: 'IETF Problem Statement' to Informational RFC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>While we did call rough consensus despite your comments,
>>>
>>>and those of
>>>
>>>>Todd Glassey and Alex Conta,  we did not ignore your
>>>
>>>comments and they
>>>
>>>>were included in the report on the rough consensus:
>>>>
>>>>http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/2003-
>>>>December/003245.html
>>>
>>>that's a stretch.  I certainly didn't recognize a response to
>>>any of my
>>>comments in this "report".
>>>
>>>
>>>>to which you commented, albeit not in agreement,:
>>>>
>>>>http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/2003-
>>>>December/003247.html
>>>
>>>yes, I was commenting on your complete failure to evaluate my
>>>comments.
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 4700 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/attachments/20040107/b47b9623/smime.bin