Re: [Geopriv] Consensus call: Basis for revisions to RFC 3825

From: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) ^lt;drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Thu Apr 23 2009 - 02:36:39 EDT

My understanding was that you have already done the consensus call on what improvements to do, which was accepted.

You then asked for adoption of a draft to reflect this and that is where the problems arise. (and yes Hannes the whole decision in that light is essentially an editorial one - the editorial nature was not initiated by me).

What I want to be able to see is the original document, which had IETF consensus, reflected in the revised document, with the exception of the technical revisions GEOPRIV had now agreed to which will change, i.e. start from RFC 3825 and make the minimal changes necessary to document the technical change. I believe this is what Brian proposed to do as well.

So no restructuring and don't change change those bits that are not subject to the technical change we have agreed.

Still include a changes subclause from RFC 3825.

Ideally the diff tools should still work between the two documents, and I will not see virtually delete all and replace.

I would then add that if additional changes are required over and above the technical consensus call after the meeting, they require a separate consensus call, rather than trying to railroad through a complete replacement document.

regards

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Barnes [mailto:rbarnes@bbn.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:32 AM
> To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
> Cc: Gabor.Bajko@nokia.com; geopriv@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Consensus call: Basis for revisions to RFC 3825
>
> Keith,
>
> Could you clarify the extent to which your objections are
> related to the technical content of the draft, versus the
> format of it? In other words, would you be satisfied if the
> current draft were rewritten with the same technical
> guidelines (2119 language, etc), but in a format that more
> closely resembles 3825?
>
> Thanks,
> --Richard
>
>
>
> DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
> > I believe the restructuring issues will be lost if I accept
> the document now.
> >
> > Explain to me how we can minimise the restricturing and
> rewrite changes when the document I am being asked to accept
> now appears to do pretty much a total rewrite.
> >
> > I therefore sustain my objection.
> >
> > regards
> >
> > Keith
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Gabor.Bajko@nokia.com [mailto:Gabor.Bajko@nokia.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 4:06 PM
> >> To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith); rbarnes@bbn.com
> >> Cc: geopriv@ietf.org
> >> Subject: RE: [Geopriv] Consensus call: Basis for revisions to RFC
> >> 3825
> >>
> >> Keith,
> >>
> >> IEEE needs a conclusion on this document asap. Do you have a
> >> technical argument against 3825bis? The restructuring
> issues can be
> >> handled at a later stage.
> >>
> >> My answer to Richard's question: YES.
> >>
> >> - gabor
> >>
> >>
> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org
> [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On
> >> >Behalf Of ext DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
> >> >Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 4:19 AM
> >> >To: Richard Barnes
> >> >Cc: 'GEOPRIV'
> >> >Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Consensus call: Basis for
> revisions to RFC
> >> 3825
> >> >
> >> >I have just created a diff of the RFC against the I-D.
> >> Because there has
> >> >been some radical restructuring, and because there have been
> >> attempts to
> >> >do a complete rewrite, this is not the direction I want to see
> >> this work
> >> >go. Therefore I must still reject the 3825bis draft as
> a starting
> >> point.
> >> >
> >> >In my view the effective changes on the document must
> be much less
> >> >radical, i.e. no restructuring of the document, no rewrite of
> >> clauses
> >> >where we are not attempting to address problems, and so on.
> >> >
> >> >regards
> >> >
> >> >Keith
> >> >
> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> From: Richard Barnes [mailto:rbarnes@bbn.com]
> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:21 AM
> >> >> To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
> >> >> Cc: 'GEOPRIV'
> >> >> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Consensus call: Basis for revisions to
> >> RFC 3825
> >> >>
> >> >> Keith,
> >> >>
> >> >> What Hannes said is correct: The question is whether the
> >> >> document in question should be used as a starting point for
> >> >> the WG document. The issue of scope is independent of this
> >> >> question (but related, since one would like the starting
> >> >> point to be close to the goal), since the document will be
> >> >> revised to meet the needs of the WG.
> >> >>
> >> >> --Richard
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
> >> >> > I have some major problems with this question, and
> >> >> therefore the answer has to be no.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The underlying basis for any revision has to be RFC3825. I
> >> >> am not in favour of a carte blanche replacement of RFC 3825.
> >> >> In the absence of consensus, current 3825
> requirements prevail.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What we should be attempting to do is fix the problems in
> >> >> RFC 3825. So I would prefer questions asked on: Do we agree
> >> >> on the fix of a specific issues.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Keith
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> >> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org
> >> >> >> [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Richard Barnes
> >> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 2:43 AM
> >> >> >> To: 'GEOPRIV'
> >> >> >> Subject: [Geopriv] Consensus call: Basis for
> revisions to RFC
> >> 3825
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> All,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Based on the prior thread about the scope of 3825
> fixes, it
> >> sounds
> >> >> >> like the closest of the three proposed documents to what
> >> >> people want
> >> >> >> is draft-thomson-geopriv-3825bis-03. So I would
> like to put
> >> the
> >> >> >> following question to the group:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Should the WG document for revisions to RFC 3825
> be based on
> >> >> >> draft-thomson-geopriv-3825bis-03?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Please respond to the list by Monday, 27 April 2009.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >> >> --Richard
> >> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> >> Geopriv mailing list
> >> >> >> Geopriv@ietf.org
> >> >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >_______________________________________________
> >> >Geopriv mailing list
> >> >Geopriv@ietf.org
> >> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> >>
>
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 08:36:39 +0200

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Apr 23 2009 - 02:43:48 EDT