Re: draft-ietf-fax-esmtp-conneg-10.txt

Ted,

TH> 	In your previous messages, you seemed to me to indicate
TH> your were speaking as an individual, rather than representing the
TH> consensus of the group.

Right.  And your point is what, exactly?


TH>   The questions I put forward in the previous
TH> message are intended to get the group consensus on the positions
TH> you put forward in response to my comments.

Perhaps you didn't notice, but it is rather unusual to have a
non-cognizant AD pose a lengthy list of questions to the working
group, as part of a process to resolve that AD's own veto of a
specification.

What is normal is for an AD with concerns is for the AD to present
them in a way that affords a clear path to resolution.

In my previous posting I was attempting to put this issue into its
most practical terms:  One of the people charged with writing the
document's text does not know what to write to satisfy your
requirements.

You should be concerned about fixing that lack of clarity about your
concerns, rather than trying the procedural step of moving the issue
to the working group, where there will be no additional information
for a more informed assessment.

The question is why you are not.


TH> Sorry if the wording seems strange

I don't remember using the word strange.

My recollection is that the list of questions was silly, wasteful,
arbitrary, and so on. And I thought I made pointed comment along these lines

So what IS strange is your summarizing my assessment so neutrally.


TH> 	Some of them (e.g. the "Does the working group concur
TH> that the analytic concerns of the OPES working group have been incorporated?)
TH> are purely confirmations.  None of them are meant to be tendentious.

Let's see.  You express concern that Opes has not been attended to.
You are told that it has been carefully attended to.

You fail to provide any substance to your concern, instead resorting
to a generic, content-free question to the working group.

In other words, your question to the working group was entirely
arbitrary.

Next you might choose to ask the working group whether it thinks the
document is the right length or has a pleasant enough tone.

Now I truly believe you think that you are not being tendentious, but
I also believe you need to reconsider that belief.


TH> This is an effort on my part, in the face of fairly obvious miscommunication,
TH> to be clear on the questions I would like to see the WG's response to
TH> so that we can move forward.

You are casting it as that, now.

The problem is that that is not what you cast as your reasons for
blocking publication.

As I said, you are taking your own concerns about the document and
trying to cast them as things the working group "needs" to
(re-)confirm.

Lack of working group consensus is not the issue.

Your veto is the issue.

The problem with the tack you have now taken is that it forcefully
ignores the long working group history. It presumes that the working
group has not gone through a sufficient consideration and confirmation
process.

Why are you making that assumption, Ted?

If you had specific criticisms of the normative content, then getting
technical re-review by the working group would make sense.  Instead
you are raising vague, non-normative issues and burdening the working
group with them.



>>Forgive me, but I thought the new world of IESG transparency assured
>>us of getting clear IESG statements that are clearly labeled as to AD
>>source.
TH> They are clearly labelled as to AD source; the choice of other ADs not
TH> to enter their own DISCUSS comments when they agree with the points
TH> already raised is also a choice to let the AD who has written the DISCUSS
TH> determine when it is answered.

Oh, good.

You are claiming that there is some undocumented set of ADs who
support your own concerns, although a number of other ADs carefully
documented their own views.

That nicely defeats the reason names are associated with IESG
feedback.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:[email protected]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>