IETF Stream Documents Require IETF Rough Consensus
draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational-04

[Ballot comment]
Some minor nits. Feel free to ignore.

* Section 4

Since this talks about the Independent Stream itself suggest replacing "procedure" with "path"

s/we have an explicit procedure for such publication/we have an explicit path for such publication/

Typo:
s/authorithy/authority/

[Ballot comment]
I think at least the first two paragraphs in section 4 would have some value to be left in the final RFC for some background knowledge.


Update:
----
I've just been looking at RFC2026 again which is updated by this document. RFC2026 says:

4.2.2  Informational

  An "Informational" specification is published for the general
  information of the Internet community, and does not represent an
  Internet community consensus or recommendation.  The Informational
  designation is intended to provide for the timely publication of a
  very broad range of responsible informational documents from many
  sources, subject only to editorial considerations and to verification
  that there has been adequate coordination with the standards process
  (see section 4.2.3).

This text often leads to confusion, so I think it would have actually been useful for this draft to further clarify this text or even this text in OLD/NEW style. Just leaving this as a comment but I guess it not too late to do that...

Also note that the following page on the ietf.org should be updates as well as soon as this document is published:

https://www.ietf.org/standards/process/informational-vs-experimental/

[Ballot comment]
Abstract

  This document proposes that the IETF never publish any IETF Stream
  RFCs without IETF rough consensus.  This updates RFC 2026.

Will "proposes" or "requires" be better in the final RFC?

Section 1

  IETF procedures, as defined by [RFC2026] allow for Informational or
  Experimental RFCs to be published without IETF rough consensus.  For

nit: "as defined by [RFC2026]" sounds like a parenthetical expression
that would benefit from a second comma, after it.

Section 4

  The IETF procedures prior to publication of this BCP permit such
  information or experimental publication without IETF rough consensus.

nit: s/information/informational/

Section 7

Whereas normal procedures would have us cite BCP 9 rather than "just"
RFC 2026, given that this document will itself become part of BCP 9, the
RFC-specific citation seems correct (as-is).

[Ballot comment]
I think at least the first two paragraphs in section 4 would have some value to be left in the final RFC for some background knowledge.

[Ballot comment]
I generally support this document, but I want to understand what will happen to documents already in works that don't have IETF Consensus when this document is approved.

[Ballot comment]
A few tweaks in Section 4 to align the verb tense to past tense:

s/this BCP permit/this BCP permitted/

s/it makes it worse/it made it worse/

s/this has the IESG/this had the IESG/

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational-02, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

Closed request for Last Call review by RTGDIR with state 'Withdrawn': Hi!  Adrian is already participating in the discussion.  And Joel Halpern, another ex AD is one of the authors.  Luc: Let’s cancel this request.  Do I need to do anything on my side?  Thanks Bruno!  Alvaro.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-02-21):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational@ietf.org, alissa@cooperw.in, caw@heapingbits.net
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (IETF Stream Documents Require IETF Rough Consensus) to Best Current Practice


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
following document: - 'IETF Stream Documents Require IETF Rough Consensus'
  as Best Current
  Practice

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2020-02-21. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document proposes that the IETF never publish any IETF stream
  RFCs without IETF rough consensus.  This updates RFC 2026.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

This version is dated 1 November 2019.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

BCP, as reflected in the title page header. This document simply updates RFC 2026, so this is appropriate. 

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

This document updates RFC 2026 to prohibit the IETF from publishing any document, e.g., Informational or Experimental, without rough consensus.

Working Group Summary

Yes, it was considered in GENDISPATCH, wherein participants urged this document towards AD sponsorship. There are no controversial points about this document.

Document Quality

The document is fine.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

This document did not see much discussion or review prior to IETF 106, though was discussed without controversy at that time. The document is small, simple, and ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the interested community has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No.

(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole understand and agree with it?

Strong consensus amongst participants in the GENDISPATCH working group.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

idnits reports no errors:

    Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 0 comments (--).

There is one typo in the draft: "IEtF" instead of "IETF" in the abstract.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the interested community considers it unnecessary.

This document updates RFC 2026, as noted on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and mentioned in the document introduction.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

N/A, as there are no IANA requests.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

N/A.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

N/A.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

N/A.