Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
Dave, You make an assumption here that there is some relationship between the usefulness of a standard done from a working group and those individual submissions. Is that assumption borne out in truth? Just asking. I haven't checked too much. Eliot Dave Crocker wrote: On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 10:46:41 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: The usual case for an individual submission is, I think: - there are a number of people who see a need for it - there are a (usually far lower) number of people who are willing to work on it - nobody's significantly opposed to getting the work done Harald, Given that we are talking about an individual submission, two points from your list are curious: 1. The last point is at least confusing, since the submission comes *after* the work has been done; otherwise it would be a working group effort; so I do not know what additional work you are envisioning. 2. Since there is no track record for the work -- given that it has not been done in an IETF working group -- then what is the basis for assessing its community support, abssent Last Call comments? If one has no concern for the IETF's producing useless and unsupported specifications, then it does not much matter whether marginal specifications are passed. However the IESG's diligence at seeking perfection in working group output submitted for approval suggests that, indeed, there is concern both for efficacy and safety. How are either of these assessed for an individual submission, if not by requiring a Last Call to elicit substantial and serious commentary of support? d/ ps. The IESG used to be very forceful in requiring explicit statements (demonstrations) of community support; . I suspect we have moved, instead, towards delegating the assessment almost entirely to our representatives and their subjective preferences for work that is submitted. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
Dave, I think that the requirements for a successful last call depend on how much review and interest have been demonstrated before the last call. For example, I recently last called draft-housley-cms-fw-wrap. It received no last call comments. What should I do with the draft? Well, in that case, I knew the draft had been reviewed (and changed based on comments) by several people in the S/MIME and security community. I also knew there was work on implementations and specific customers who plan to use the standard if approved. In my judgement as an AD, that was sufficient to justify bringing the document to the IESG even given no support in last call. There might very well be cases wher I'd bring a document to last call wher I was skeptical of the utility of the standard. I'd actually suspect that other tools for judging sufficient support before bringing a document to last call might be better, but last call is certainly a tool for judging support. In such a case, I might conclude that no comments were insufficient support. In conclusion, it seems like the ADs sponsoring documents have significant latitude in this area and that is a reasonable way for things to work. The community can complain that a standard is useless during last call; you can even say things like "I don't see the point; if others don't chime in and say they would use this, please do not publish." In addition, the community has multiple ways of giving feedback if they believe that there are systemic problems in the criteria ADs are using. --Sam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Confused about references to I-D when the RFC is published
Last week, one RFC has been published with a reference to an I-D when the final RFC is already published. RFC 3958 says: [11] Atkins, D. and R. Austein, "Threat Analysis Of The Domain Name System", Work in Progress, April 2004. while RFC 3833 is five months old. Now, I understand that RFC 3958 was probably approved before RFC 3833 was issued. But I thought (ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-editor/rfc-editor-process.gif) that references were supposed to be updated by the RFC editor even after approval by the IESG? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Confused about references to I-D when the RFC is published
--On Sunday, 09 January, 2005 22:22 +0100 Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Last week, one RFC has been published with a reference to an > I-D when the final RFC is already published. > > RFC 3958 says: > >[11] Atkins, D. and R. Austein, "Threat Analysis Of The > Domain Name System", Work in Progress, April 2004. > > while RFC 3833 is five months old. > > Now, I understand that RFC 3958 was probably approved before > RFC 3833 was issued. But I thought > (ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-editor/rfc-editor-proce > ss.gif) that references were supposed to be updated by the RFC > editor even after approval by the IESG? Yes. But this is also the sort of thing that authors are supposed to check carefully on RFC Editor 48 hour author's last call. Slip-ups happen; no one is perfect. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
