Re: USEFOR last call, point of order
Forrest J. Cavalier III <mibsoft <at> mibsoftware.com>
2006-10-04 15:38:39 GMT
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> In <4521DC94.9020705 <at> mibsoftware.com> "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <mibsoft <at> mibsoftware.com> writes:
>>I really appreciate your detailed response.
>>>My suggestion, however, is that the better course of action given that the last
>>>call has begun is to comment on technical issues in the document itself rather
>>>than the process that has gotten us to this point.
>>1. It is my opinion that most of the technical issues in USEFOR are going to
>>remain hidden until the discussions start on USEPRO, and implementations start
>>to be written. Raising a significant formal objection now is going to be pretty
>>difficult, since USEFOR is a document format, not a protocol. Risk of harm only
>>arises through activity, not format specifications alone.
> Then your proper course of action is to recommend to the IESG that they
> decline to publish it until they see USEPRO (that is also my own view, but
> I accept that the consensus was against me).
> But you have given no cogent reason for absolute rejection of the
It was the third way I was searching for. Discuss the process. Discuss how
USEFOR came to be submitted for last call, and if that was proper. Discuss how
soon the clean up to USEFOR (that USEPRO will cause) will happen.
I agree that "Perfect draft" is unreasonable. But there is a continuum of
imperfection. We have a disagreement in the WG about how ready the document is.
That disagreement was NOT apparent or highlighted by the submission from Alexey.
The IESG gives no more weight to the USEPRO editor's view than others, which
is weird, considering how USEFOR came to be a piece split off from a larger
work, and the significant interdependencies between them. If USEFOR were a
strict documentation of existing practice, my opinion would be different.
So, Charles is correct that I have given no reason for absolute rejection of the
document. I don't think it should be absolutely rejected. I agree it is an
improvement over those parts of previous standards. And that is what the IESG
is looking for: some improvement. That's a pretty low bar. If "minimal
improvement over 1036" was the bar of acceptance, then we could have submitted
long, long, long ago. We could have used Son-Of-1036. But that was NOT the charter.
If that is the bar, then no Format standard that proposes new features can be
appealed. Is that what the IESG rules intend? If one were to try to appeal to
the IESG to reject USEFOR now, most likely it would be based on something that
USEPRO draft says now. (As I said, activities create risk, not mere format
specifications.) But an appeal on that basis would be dismissed by saying
"Well, USEPRO is just a draft, we can fix it in USEPRO." Saying that it is
fixable in USEPRO is pure hubris, (some format flaws cannot be overcome by
protocol.) Saying that USEPRO will be fixed in any particular time frame is not
supported by the track record of this WG.
Isn't there a third way? Apparently not.
I predict the end result of all this will be is a confusing set of conflicting
or incomplete standards issued from a single WG, and no one left interested in
cleaning it up. The people who can act to prevent that are the chair and the AD.