Subject: [sidr] Request for WGLC

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:46:02 +1000

I wish to request you as as working group chair to conduct a Working  
Group Last call on the following documents of which I am a co-author:

	draft-ietf-sidr-res-certs-17

	draft-ietf-sidr-repos-struct-03.txt

	draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation-03.txt

-George

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:23:48 +0900

> draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation-03.txt

i object to last call on this.  there is a conflicting draft, and one
not by a wg co-chair.

randy

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:48:02 +1000

> i object to last call on this.  there is a conflicting draft, and one

The conflicting draft has an outstanding IPR claim, which has not been  
discussed or addressed by the authors (which includes yourself Randy)

The draft has only just been proposed for adoption.

Can you explain what aspect of process prevents a WG co-chair from  
authorship of documents in the WG?

-George

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:53:42 +0900

> discussed or addressed by the authors (which includes yourself Randy)

this is just part of normal life in the ietf.  you might wait to learn
what ipr is claimed before lynching anyone.

> The draft has only just been proposed for adoption.

so?

> authorship of documents in the WG?

the particular wg co-chair is a co-author on both drafts.  but you might
find <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg01073.html>
somewhat relevant.

randy

---

From: Sandra Murphy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:56:00 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

> find <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg01073.html>

Not in the current version of the pfx-validate draft.

--Sandy

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:02:11 +1000

> what ipr is claimed before lynching anyone.

I am not lynching anyone. Sam Weiler mailed the list last week on this  
issue and I haven't seen a reply.

Don't you think its relevant? I think its relevant to WG adoption.

>> The draft has only just been proposed for adoption.

It seems a little odd to promote a 'conflicting draft' as a WGLC  
blocker when it hasn't even adopted as a WG item.

> the particular wg co-chair is a co-author on both drafts.

Wrong. go re-read the authors section of 03. The same edit which added  
you as an author removed Geoff.

>  but you might

I don't see anything relevant there. Its your own personal opinion,  
and its on the record.

Shame on you Randy, for hijacking WG process for a personal agenda.

-George

---

From: Sandra Murphy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:04:36 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

> discussed or addressed by the authors (which includes yourself Randy)

The IPR Disclosure can be seen at:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1028/

> Can you explain what aspect of process prevents a WG co-chair from authorship 
> of documents in the WG?
>
> -George

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:09:21 +0900

> you as an author removed Geoff.

whoops!  well, at least i did contribute to it.

> Shame on you Randy, for hijacking WG process for a personal agenda.

even if true, which it is not, this would be far from new to this wg.

randy

---

From: Sandra Murphy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:22:12 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

> even if true, which it is not, this would be far from new to this wg.

Guys, guys, guys.

We are going to have a lot of work to do in the next few weeks.

With decent respect for people's time, please keep the off-topic comments 
off-list.

--Sandy

---

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:18:19 -0400

George and all,

> Group Last call on the following documents of which I am a co-author:
...
> 	draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation-03.txt

This draft says that its intended status is Informational.  Does that  
correctly represent what you think should happen with this document?   
I.e., that it be published as an RFC but not as any kind of a  
standard?  (See also the RFC 2026 definition of "Informational".)

If so that would seem to suggest that the apparent conflict with draft- 
pmohapat-sidr-pfx-validate-03.txt is moot, since an Informative  
document, strictly speaking, can't conflict with a Standards Track  
document.

Thanks,

--John

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:48:16 +1000

On 29/10/2009, at 6:18 AM, John G. Scudder wrote:

>> I wish to request you as as working group chair to conduct a  
>> Working Group Last call on the following documents of which I am a  
>> co-author:
> ...
> This draft says that its intended status is Informational.  Does  
> that correctly represent what you think should happen with this  
> document?  I.e., that it be published as an RFC but not as any kind  
> of a standard?  (See also the RFC 2026 definition of "Informational".)
>
> If so that would seem to suggest that the apparent conflict with  
> draft-pmohapat-sidr-pfx-validate-03.txt is moot, since an  
> Informative document, strictly speaking, can't conflict with a  
> Standards Track document.
>
> Thanks,
>

Thanks for this observation John. If I understand this right, surely  
this means that Randy's WGLC objection to draft-ietf-sidr-roa- 
validation-03.txt is therefore moot, as there is no apparent conflict.

cheers

-George

---

From: Ross Callon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:50:41 -0400

> draft-pmohapat-sidr-pfx-validate-03.txt is moot, since an Informative

If someone wanted to publish an informational document which gave a new version of BGP which is incompatible with existing deployed BGP, then I would expect that people would care a lot. If they argued "the new incompatible version of BGP is informational, so it is fine", I don't think that this would make most people happy (and as AD this argument by itself wouldn't make me happy). 

Thus I don't think that it is true that "an Informative document, strictly speaking, can't conflict with a Standards Track document". 

It is true that there have been cases of multiple incompatible experimental protocols published, but this is usually requires quite a bit of thought to make sure that there is a good reason to have multiple incompatible protocols. It is also true that there are cases where a protocol or an architecture that enjoys rough consensus of the WG will in some sense overtake a competitive document that did not enjoy rough consensus of the WG, but this of course requires judgment of the WG (which for example might be determined in WG discussions and a WG last call).

Ross (speaking as AD)

---

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 03:27:25 -0400

Ross,

On Oct 29, 2009, at 12:50 AM, Ross Callon wrote:
...
> Thus I don't think that it is true that "an Informative document,  
> strictly speaking, can't conflict with a Standards Track document".

Makes sense; I shouldn't have said otherwise.

Let me try a different tack and simply ask why draft-ietf-sidr-roa- 
validation-03 is intended as Informational and not Standards Track.

Regards,

--John

---

From: Robert Loomans <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:14:39 +1000

> i object to last call on this.  there is a conflicting draft, and one

As I understand it the WGLC for draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation should be
evaluated on the draft's own merits:

If there are specific conflicts between this and
draft-pmohapat-sidr-pfx-validate, could you please state what the
difference of opinion is.

If they simply cover the same ground, please say why the existing WG
draft is insufficient.

In either case, this would help clarify whether
draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation is sufficient as-is, needs nit fixes, or
more.

Thanks,
    Rob

-- 
Robert Loomans                         email:       [email-masked]
Senior Software Engineer, APNIC        sip:    [email-masked]
http://www.apnic.net/                  phone:         +61 7 3858 3100