Last Call: 'IETF Problem Statement' to Informational RFC

[todd glassey]

Alex, the issues is the process for defining what
constrains an acceptable  inclusion. The question is
one of how commentary inside a WG is included into the
formal recorded of that WG and what is edited or
censored out. And this of course is the bigger issue to
address.

Todd Glassey
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alex Conta" <aconta at txc.com>
To: "Brian E Carpenter" <brc at zurich.ibm.com>
Cc: <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>; <iesg at ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'IETF Problem Statement' to
Informational RFC


> 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-stat
ement/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-stat
ement/2003-
> >>>>December/003247.html
> >>>
> >>>yes, I was commenting on your complete failure to
evaluate my
> >>>comments.
> >
> >
> >
>
>