Re: Document Blocking (Was: I-D

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>]

--On onsdag, juni 11, 2003 21:25:09 -0400 Margaret Wasserman 
<mrw@windriver.com> wrote:

> Hi Harald,
>
> I have a question regarding mail that you sent on the
> problem list in response to a question from me:
>
> At 02:13 PM 5/21/2003 +0200, you wrote:
> > > Also, some AD review comments and DISCUSS comments are really
> > > about matters of taste -- the belief that a section should be
> > > removed from a document because it is redundant (not wrong,
> > > just redundant), the opinion that some historical note should be
> > > added explaining why something was done a particular way, etc.
> > > In those cases, there may be no right or wrong.  In general,
> > > the IESG wins because they can block publication of the document.
> > > Do you think that's reasonable?
> > No. Those issues should be labelled COMMENT, not DISCUSS.
> Within the context of the above mail, could you explain to me
> why the DISCUSS comments that Randy currently has open against
> draft-ietf-ipv6-unicast-aggr-v2-02.txt are labelled DISCUSS
> and not COMMENT?
What it should mean is that the AD thinks the document should not go 
forward without these things being fixed (if the objections are valid) or 
better explained to the AD (if the objections are not valid).
But Randy can speak for himself....

> BTW, I have never seen a non-blocking COMMENT from an AD.  How
> would those comments be communicated to us?
For one example, see the ballot on draft-ietf-mobileip-mipv6-ha-ipsec; 
there are DISCUSS comments, for instance:

Steve:

Per Steve Kent's comments (see his annotated version of the draft
at http://psg.com/~smb/draft-ietf-mobileip-mipv6-ha-ip.htm ),
there seems to be a serious mismatch between the semantics of IPsec
and what is needed by this spec. In particular, the spec demands
special matching and processing rules for input and output packets
that are seriously inconsistent with IPsec. In principle, IPsec might
be changeable in this regard, since the specs are currently undergoing
revision; in practice, I suspect that the changes needed are too great.
In any event, the changes will require the approval of the IPsec
working group.

Below that, there are Comments, for instance:

Ted:

Section 7's implementation considerations on fragmentation
in the presence of certificates surprised me by recommending
replacing firewalls or routers, given that we're talking about
mobility. Replacing gear in someone else's network is a good
trick.

I do not know how the AD (Thomas) chose to relay these to the WG.

              Harald