Subject: I-D affects another or work in ietf groups

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 04:56:35 +0100

Hi folks,

Related to one discussion with a participant about I-Ds affecting WGs,
I have a question after reading two real incidents. The following two
work process examples are to show the I-Ds/RFCs affects from
participants point of view;

1) I got an understanding from one expert participant that his I-D is
not related to one RFC, even though it does involve similar objectives
and use-case, which was strange to me. So I understood from him that
his I-D is not affected by that RFC, even though his I-D does not
mention to exclude that RFC. IMO, I disagree with such producing I-D
by separate review-approach unaffected by other related RFCs (i.e. not
mentioned RFCs).

2) While I was discussing within a WG about an I-D which is a second
version of one IETF prorocol, some participants thought that the I-D
obsolete the old version even if not mentioned in the I-D. It then was
requested to update and mention that it does not obsolete the older
version. New versions are related and can affect each other, or affect
people understanding, which requires more careful presentation for
such I-D.

I beleive that we have one source of producing RFCs, so all I-Ds and
RFCs are related some how, and they affect each other. So when I
review an item, I always like to consider all RFCs as much as I can to
make Internet better.

Is that approach right for review? please advise,

AB

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 04:27:16 +0000

Speaking for myself, I would say that an internet draft is relevant to work in a working group if and only if it is covered by the charter of the working group. Anyone can claim anything to dodge the requirement that they ask relevant groups to review it. That doesn't make the claim true.

In the event that you need a ruling, I would suggest discussing it with the relevant chairs and, if necessary, ADs. Generally speaking, they will have no axe to grind and can give you a reasonably objective answer.

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 07:14:48 -0500

As well, if there is a conflict, it will certainly come out in IESG review or IETF Last Call.

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 22:46:04 -0500 (EST)

> From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
> 

If you are reviewing a document as an individual, you are free to
consider its interactions with anything that you consider relevant.  As
you say, "as much as I can to make the Internet better".

If you have been given a specific duty when reviewing a document, then
that duty may prescribe what interactions you should be considering.

In any case, if you are doing something incorrect in your review,
presumably people will call your attention to that fact, and explain
how you should change what you are doing and why you should change it.

Dale

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:47:00 +0000

> how you should change what you are doing and why you should change it.

And on this note, doing something wrong and being corrected is always a
better choice than not doing something.

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 14:05:58 -0800

Hi Dave,
At 01:47 10-02-2013, Dave Cridland wrote:
>And on this note, doing something wrong and being corrected is 
>always a better choice than not doing something.

Agreed.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:01:14 -0800

>> And on this note, doing something wrong and being corrected is always
>> a better choice than not doing something.
>
> Agreed.

Well...

That claimed benefit is probably true, from a global perspective, but 
often not true from a local (personal) perspective.

Most of us do local optimization, seeking to avoid criticism. Let's not 
be distracted by the example of the few, cantankerous ones of us who 
appear to be impervious to attack.

What changes this counter-productive pressure to keep quiet is making 
the tone of things be supportive and constructive rather than frankly 
hostile.

Does anyone seriously think the typical IETF exchange displays this 
more-positive tone?

d/

-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:34:09 -0500

> Does anyone seriously think the typical IETF exchange displays this

I guess it all depends on what you're used to.  IETF discussions seem 
reasonably temperate to me.

Scott K

---

From: [email-masked] (Martin Rex)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 21:24:03 +0100 (CET)

> better choice than not doing something.

If this is about disagreement about someone elses proposal and speaking up,
then that should be OK most of the time (but not always).

But otherwise, if you do something and rely entirely on others to
watch you, to notice when you're wrong and to tell you before it
becomes costly to fix or is too late to change, then you might be
acting irresponsibly.

-Martin