Subject: [tsvwg] Adam Roach's Abstain on draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2018 13:37:07 -0700

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06: Abstain

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 https://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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with Ben (and, transitively, the OPSDIR an GENART reviewers). From my
reading, this document -- while immensely valuable to the working group for
creation of an RFC 4960 bis document -- has little archival value. The following
standing guidance from the IESG would seem to be applicable:

https://www.ietf.org/blog/support-documents-ietf-working-groups/

Like Ben, I'm abstaining on this document. I would ask the working group to
consider not publishing it in this form, and waiting until a complete bis
version of the document can be produced.

---

From: Michael Tuexen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 07:19:29 +0200

> On 3. Jul 2018, at 22:37, Adam Roach <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
Just to get a better understanding of your position:

Are you suggesting either

(1) To work on RFC4960-bis and once that gets published, publish an RFC4960-errata
    which is consistent with RFC4960-bis at a later time.

or

(2) To work on RFC4960-bis and just drop this document since there is no archival
    value for the reasons why something has changed. Having the changed version
    is the important point.

Best regards
Michael

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 14:59:16 -0500

>      value for the reasons why something has changed. Having the changed version

I'm suggesting something close to (2), which I hoped the link to 
https://www.ietf.org/blog/support-documents-ietf-working-groups/ would 
make clear.

/a

---

From: "Proshin, Maksim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 13:43:05 +0000

Hi Adam,

I guess support documents are never published. How they could be found and used by developers who are not closely involved in WG work?

BR, Maxim

________________________________
From: tsvwg <[email-masked]> on behalf of Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 10:59:16 PM
To: Michael Tuexen
Cc: Gorry Fairhurst; The IESG; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Adam Roach's Abstain on draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06: (with COMMENT)

/a

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 13:20:58 +1200

> I guess support documents are never published. How they could be found and used by developers who are not closely involved in WG work?

No, they are often published. I can give you several examples that I've been
somewhat involved in:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3248 (actually an alternative to a standards track RFC)
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6294
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6436

I'm not sure why the present one is different, except for being rather long.

   Brian

---

From: "Gorry (erg)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 17:22:13 -0400

I think you are discussing a change of process wrt to what we have done before in TSVWG ... I am concerned that so much energy has been spent during IETF last call and now again. Please can you decide if you need the WG to change the process for this doc?

GorrY

> On 4 Jul 2018, at 15:59, Adam Roach <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> I'm suggesting something close to (2), which I hoped the link to https://www.ietf.org/blog/support-documents-ietf-working-groups/ would make clear.
> 
> /a

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 15:06:09 +1200

> I'm not sure why the present one is different, except for being rather long.

BTW, the IESG statement suggests that "support documents" are "such things as
requirements and use cases", and as I understood it at the time, those were
what the IESG was concerned about. Such documents were more or less excluded
by the ANIMA WG charter, for example. We were explicitly told by the AD that
the idea was to prevent wasting WG time. The present document is definitely
not requirements and use cases, and is not time-wasting. In any case, this
is very late in the process to mention this guidance: the work has been done,
with the full knowledge of the AD.

  Brian

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 18:43:47 -0500

I'm not intending to ignore this thread; I'm waiting for Spencer, the 
sponsoring AD, to have time to catch up on the discussion so far and 
weigh in. I believe he was offline last week, and I'm sure he's busy 
catching up at the moment.

Speaking to two of the points below:

  * The three RFCs cited predate the 2016 statement by five to 14 years,
    which sharply limits its applicability to their respective publications.

  * There is possibly some subjectivity in what may be construed as a
    "support document;" however, it's worth noting that eleven of the
    current fifteen IESG members plus two of the three area review teams
    reviewers have indicated that they believe the document does not
    have sufficient archival value to be published as an RFC.

I'll also point out that my ballot position (Abstain) is non-blocking, 
and Spencer is free to move forward with the document (if he so chooses) 
once he is able to discuss it with the IESG. He and the working group 
have received my advice, and concurring advice from a large majority of 
the IESG. How he and you choose to act on it is your own decision.

/a

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 12:11:06 +1200

>     which sharply limits its applicability to their respective publications.

True, but the underlying question is whether they have in fact
demonstrated archival value (which I don't presume to answer).

FWIW I support the IESG guidance on this topic, but it is only
guidance.

>     have sufficient archival value to be published as an RFC.

Yes, I see that, and in some sense I might agree, but the deeper
issue is not a new one: is it OK for the IESG to second-guess this
sort of choice, which we must presume is a WG consensus decision?
(The TSVWG chairs have always been pretty careful about the
consensus process, IMHO).

Regards
    Brian