Subject: [tsvwg] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2018 07:54:32 -0700

Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06: 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 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/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Given that the majority of the IESG has now ballotted abstain, I think we
should at least discuss this. I'm marking my ballot DISCUSS until we have a
chance to discuss this on a telechat. After we've done that, if Spencer still
believes we should advance the document, I will withdraw my DISCUSS.

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

I agree with Adam and Spencer. This is just an incredibly user-hostile
presentation of this information, in particular:

  Note that when reading this document one must use care to assure that
  a field or item is not updated further on within the document.  Since
  this document is a historical record of the sequential changes that
  have been found necessary at various inter-op events and through
  discussion on the list, the last delta in the text is the one which
  should be applied.

This seems like good input to a -bis but should not be published as-is.

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 08:13:06 -0700

There was some discussion of this on the call, so to clarify my position.

Both because of the internal structure and the IESG statement cited by Adam
in his DISCUSS, I think this document should not advance, and I think it's
important to air those issues prior to making a decision. My DISCUSS is in
the sense seen here (https://ietf.org/standards/process/iesg-ballots/) of:
"I think we need to talk about this.". Once we have done so, if Spencer
thinks that this document is worth publishing, I will remove my DISCUSS.

-Ekr