Subject: Re: [GROW] Adrian Farrel's Discuss on draft-ietf-grow-irr-routing-policy-considerations-05: (with DISCUSS)

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 22:51:08 -0800

hello,

would like to chase this one down and resolve it.

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/grow/current/msg03015.html

but haven't seen to much activity.

lets do this thing and maybe we can publish this one before the upcoming
meeting.

joel

On 2/9/15 9:08 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> I'm under no illusion that terry's dicussion will have changed by the
> time he's installed.
> 
> I would rather have it done sooner in any event.
> 
> we did not get a change out prior ti the jan discussion and it stalled
> after that sorry.
> 
> On 2/9/15 1:06 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Any progress on this?
>>
>> Just in case you were holding out the hope that my Discuss will expire when I leave the IESG, I have to point out that my Discuss was to make sure that the RTG Dir review by Terry Manderson gets attention. And Terry will show up on the IESG when I leave :-)
>>
>> Shame to see a document sitting when it is so close to being done.
>>
>> Adrian
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: iesg [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
>>> Sent: 18 December 2014 15:33
>>> To: The IESG
>>> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
>>> [email-masked]
>>> Subject: Adrian Farrel's Discuss on draft-ietf-grow-irr-routing-policy-
>>> considerations-05: (with DISCUSS)
>>>
>>> Adrian Farrel has entered the following ballot position for
>>> draft-ietf-grow-irr-routing-policy-considerations-05: Discuss
>>>
>>> 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-grow-irr-routing-policy-considerations/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> DISCUSS:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> I'd like to see some discussion of the points raised by Terry Manderson
>>> in his Routing Directorate review during the IETF last call period
>>> (circulated on the Grow list at
>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/grow/current/msg03015.html).
>>>
>>> By preference this discussion should be between the authors, WG, and
>>> reviewer. But I'd be happy to step in and own the discussions if that
>>> will help.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
>

---

From: "McPherson, Danny" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:40:59 +0000

These are some pretty significant changes that themselves could be an
internet-draft/document, methinks.  Perhaps those so interested in C.I.A
in their comments could contribute some text, this was meant to be more
operational.

I hope Eric has the cycles to resolve these [non-trivial comments] and if
they did get resolved it¹d surely need to return to WG LC (IMO) ‹ and I¹d
presuppose someone would find an opportunity to request a review from
SIDR, although part of the intent was expressly to avoid beating that
horse.

I¹ll defer to Eric if he¹s going to be able to address these, but I can
pretty much guarantee it won¹t see the RFC editor until well after Dallas
(if ever, now).

Alas, 

-danny

On 3/2/15, 1:51 AM, "joel jaeggli" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>> Just in case you were holding out the hope that my Discuss will expire
>>>when I leave the IESG, I have to point out that my Discuss was to make
>>>sure that the RTG Dir review by Terry Manderson gets attention. And
>>>Terry will show up on the IESG when I leave :-)
>>>
>>>> Please refer to
>>>>http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 07:40:53 -0800

> SIDR, although part of the intent was expressly to avoid beating that

so, my assumption is a that discussing them isn't going always require
change, some of them probably will.

> pretty much guarantee it won¹t see the RFC editor until well after Dallas

If we can't resolve it under adrian, that's fine more or less becasue
the reviewer becomes the new AD but I probably get to rerun the IESG
evaluation, so for all our sakes I think that is expedient to clear the
discuss under the current regime but I am flexible.

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 15:03:33 -0000

To be clear, these comments arrived during IETF last call and were well
circulated.
My Discuss is that the comments were not addressed in the normal way of IETF
review comments. However, I offered to adopt the comments as my own and let you
discuss them with me if you prefer.

RFC 7282 provides some hints on addressing comments and, as Joel has noted,
addressing comments does not necessarily imply changing the document.

I am sure, however, that if none of the currently listed document authors has
the bandwidth to run through this process (which is perfectly fine, and reflects
the fact that the IETF is not the only activity for many of us), the WG chairs
will find it simple to appoint an additional editor to run through the final
piece of the process. So the statement (which I choose to not interpret as a
threat :-) that this document might never see the RFC Editor, is just nonsense.

Thanks,
Adrian

> From: joel jaeggli [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 02 March 2015 15:41
> To: McPherson, Danny; Adrian Farrel
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; draft-ietf-grow-
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Adrian Farrel's Discuss on draft-ietf-grow-irr-routing-policy-

---

From: "McPherson, Danny" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 17:24:00 +0000

>addressing comments does not necessarily imply changing the document.

Yep, understood.

>threat :-) that this document might never see the RFC Editor, is just

It was most certainly NOT a ³threat² - whatever that would mean as I don¹t
really have an alternative go forward plan, the comments need to be
addressed.  It was more an indication that someone finding the cycles to
dig back into this and circulate received comments with the WG for
reconsideration.  

It was simply an indication to the folks involved that the timelines
conveyed yesterday weren¹t realistic for an array of reasons ‹ and perhaps
a nudge to the current pen holder to allocate some cycles for this as
appropriate.

Thanks Adrian,

-danny

---

From: "Osterweil, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 17:37:02 +0000

> a nudge to the current pen holder to allocate some cycles for this as

I will get on this in the next 1-2 days.  Sorry for the delay, no need to add pens. ;)

Eric