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

Dave,
	Some responses below; a meta comment at the end.


At 1:19 PM -0700 7/23/04, Dave Crocker wrote:
>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?


Right below this.

>
>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.

I was asked to do so, Dave, by Scott, as a way of trying to get
past the miscommunication that seemed to be occurring between
you and me.  Perhaps it is unusual, but it is an honest effort to work
toward resolution.  I am surprised that you do not see it
as such, especially since you welcomed my direct participation
in your response to my first posting:

"MANY thanks for contributing to this exchange.  It's always useful to
get source material..."

Sorry it's been disappointing for you since then.  I am also somewhat
surprised, frankly, that no one else in the working group has jumped
into this discussion at this point to work with both of us toward that
resolution, when it is so clear that we need their help.



>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.

I am concerned with it.

I have written illustrative examples, explanatory text, and read
repeatedly over your concerns trying to see where I was not
clear.


>TH> Sorry if the wording seems strange
>
>I don't remember using the word strange.

This was the sentence to which I was reacting:
"And here you begin a lengthy sequence of very strange questions to the
working group."


>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.

I am sorry you find my politeness in this regard distressing, Dave.

>
>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.

This is not quite my view of the exchange.  I noted that text regarding
the OPES concerns is missing; I was told that the working group considered
its issues, that you personally did not see a use for such text in this
document, but would agree that a pointer to the document would do
no harm.  I have asked the working group, in the light of that review
comment that it would be useful, to consider whether more text
could be added.  I would like a consensus opinion of that, since
I consider it important.

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

I have tried to put the content into this emails, Dave; sorry that we
seem to continue to talk past each other.


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

No; the question is derived from my view of the needed context
for this spec.  I understand you disagree with my view, but it is not
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.

If you would like to discuss tone, Dave, it would not be the
draft I would suggest you consider.


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

Thank you for your belief in my belief.  I will reconsider over the weekend
by re-reading this thread; I suggest you do the same.


>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.

I have made the comments as clear as I can, and I will continue to
work with the working group to achieve what clarity we can.  But
it is somewhat difficult when I propose ways forward (such as
an applicability note) to be simply told that this is not a way forward:

"That is because applicability statements in the IETF have a long and
dubious history.  Your own desire for one, here, underscores the
vagueness that usually accompanies the requirement for one.  There are
exceptions, of course, but it does not look like the current situation
will be one."

I hope we can eventually find one way forward which does
not rely on an available mechanism about whose utility
you are not convinced.

>
>
>>>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.

I believe that the reason names are associate with IESG feedback is
so the community knows with whom to follow up.  This is
accomplished by the current system without a lot of ADs
being on the critical path when the document is ready to go.
Though it is hard to imagine that things could be slower, that
would make it so.  But our efforts in that regard belong on
other lists.

The existence of other ADs who support these concerns is
apparently not salient to you, since you believe I am individually
"vetoing" this document, rather than being engaged with the
working group on it.  So perhaps further discussion on this
topic belongs elsewhere as well.

Have a good weekend, Dave,
				regards,
					Ted Hardie