Re: Synopsis on draft-eastlake-rfc2777bis-slection-01.txt discussion

[Donald Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>]

On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, avri wrote:

> Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 16:50:26 +0100
> From: avri <avri@apocalypse.org>
> To: ietf-nomcom <ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com>
> Subject: Synopsis on  draft-eastlake-rfc2777bis-slection-01.txt discussion
> 
> A while back there was a discussion on
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eastlake-rfc2777bis-selection-01.txt
> on this list
> 
> The following is my interpretation of what was said
> (the actual email can be found in the archives for August 02
> http://lists.elistx.com/archives/ietf-nomcom/200208/.)
> 
> 1. While the document might be ok as an individual submission,
> it does contain process information that might be more
> appropriate, if approved, in the base nomcom document.
> 
> - since the document was Informational before there
> is no reason to change that status
> 
> - the procedure for picking alternates should be removed
> and put into the base document.

I never particularly wanted it to be other than Informational. I'm happy
to remove stuff from 5.2 that has been effecitvely moved to the 2727bis
draft.

> 2. a contradictory position, each stated by one person, on
> whether the practice should be optional or not:
> 
> - the procedure described is rather mechanistic and
> should remain optional
> 
> - the procedure is reproducible and its results are
> verifiable and thus it should be formalized as practice.
> 
> 3. Since the document contains code, the code should be
> verified ( I believe it is).

As far as I know, its run every year...although I guess there are some 
changes.

> ---
> 
> So, from the very small conversation, I suggest the following
> draft WG position on the draft.
> 
> 1. The draft should be changed to remove the discussion on
> picking alternates (section 5.2).

It's too late for this IETF meeting but I could do that right
afterwards.

> 2. A statement of the code having been verified should be made.

I've certainly compiled and run it.

> 3. The draft should then be considered for Informational status
> as an individual contribution.

I had submitted it to the IESG and Harald was ready to review it when I
asked him to wait for 2727bis. It would be nice if they came out more or
less at the same time so they could refer to each other.

> The other issues of
> 
> - whether this procedure should be required
> is discussed in the base draft 4.17 of
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-02.txt
> where the use of RFC2777 is presented as an option.
> While not requiring this process, the text
> reads as requiring a mechanistic process.
> 
> At the moment, there is not sufficient call for changing that
> text.  Also, to make this procedure a requirement would
> involve making 2777bis a normative document as opposed to it
> being an informational document.  This is not, as I  understand
> it, the recommendation of the WG at this time.  I am not even
> sure that it is what was meant by making it a formalized
> practice.
> 
> - choosing alternates is covered in 4.18 of the current base draft.
> 
> Please respond to this list before 21 Nov if you have any
> comments on this WG position on the draft.
> 
> thanks
> a.

Thanks,
Donald
======================================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                       dee3@torque.pothole.com
 155 Beaver Street              +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w)
 Milford, MA 01757 USA                   Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com