Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
--On 12. januar 2007 00:28 -0500 Jeffrey Hutzelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That said, I _do_ wish the tracker would maintain history of DISCUSS and COMMENT comments, instead of only showing the latest ballot text. it does - every version of a DISCUSS or a COMMENT is stored in the document event log, conveniently marked with *DISCUSS* or *COMMENT* in red. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
addressing Last Call comments [Re: Discuss criteria]
Jeff, you wrote a good note. I'll use this as an opportunity to expand on one topic a bit: On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: On Wednesday, January 03, 2007 10:49:33 PM + Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: C. PROCEDURAL BREAKAGE --- * IETF process related to document advancement was not carried out; e.g., there are unresolved and substantive Last Call comments which the document does not address... IMHO, this particular situation is more than just procedural breakage. If a document reaches this point with outstanding last call comments, then there is a more basic failure. Such a document should not have reached the point where a DISCUSS is required to keep it from progressing long enough for the comment to be addressed. Well, it seems rather common that IETF LC comments (especially if not copied to ietf@ietf.org list) are not responded. To reduce delay, it also seems common that IESG telechat is scheduled as soon as possible after IETF LC closes, and document is usually not taken out of the agenda if comments are received during the LC. Also sometimes the document gets approved without there being any record (e.g., on IESG ballots) that some comments had been made but there was no response. Therefore it is not clear to me whether such comment was addressed (I'd call this 'processed') but without public record [e.g., editor or chair] in essence rejecting the comment (possibly in good faith) or not received at all (maybe also in good faith, e.g. if WG mailing list discards non-subscriber posts or the moderator is asleep). Maybe we should be clearer on what the expectation for processing IETF LC comments is. Unless we do, it is not obvious how we could evaluate whether the procedure has been carried out properly or not. -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
Hi Jeff, on 2007-01-12 06:38 Jeffrey Hutzelman said the following: There is work in progress (requirements-gathering appears to be nearly complete) to extend the tracker to provide WG chairs with tools to track documents while they are still in the hands of the working group. I expect this will require extending the access control model, so perhaps when that's done we'll see enhanced access for shepherds. Anyone from the tools team want to comment on this? You're right above, both on the requirements gathering for chair access to the tracker, and on the refinement of the access control model this will require. Once this is in place, it should be fairly straightforward to provide enhanced access for shepherds too; but explicit work on this has not been started, and before starting it I'd say we need to decide that this is work that should be done. (It is possible that the simplest resolution in cases where the shepherd is not a chair is to give the shepherd the same access rights as a chair.) Henrik ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
Henrik Levkowetz wrote: It is possible that the simplest resolution in cases where the shepherd is not a chair is to give the shepherd the same access rights as a chair. Hi, do you mean s/Chair/AD/ here ? Frank ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: addressing Last Call comments [Re: Discuss criteria]
It seems like most other SDOs use formalized issue trackers for the equivalent of last call (ballot) comments, making it easy to see what has been going on. Some WG do this, but each usually picking their own peculiar tracker. The problem with any substantial IETF LC or WGLC comments is that they are often multiple issues, from the trivial spelling errors to fundamental architectural issues. It is difficult to make sure that all have been addressed and that discussions don't become emails with meaningless subject lines - unintentionally making sure that nobody beyond the authors (if you're lucky) pays attention. Putting all comments, including DISCUSS, into a document-specific issue tracker would be most helpful. (It would be helpful even beyond publication of an RFC, as we have found for the SIP documents, as they can be used to gather issues that a future bis effort needs to address. From what I can tell, almost all of the non-trivial protocol documents these days generate an draft-ietf-rfcXYZbis, after all.) Henning On Jan 12, 2007, at 3:54 AM, Pekka Savola wrote: Jeff, you wrote a good note. I'll use this as an opportunity to expand on one topic a bit: On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: On Wednesday, January 03, 2007 10:49:33 PM + Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: C. PROCEDURAL BREAKAGE --- * IETF process related to document advancement was not carried out; e.g., there are unresolved and substantive Last Call comments which the document does not address... IMHO, this particular situation is more than just procedural breakage. If a document reaches this point with outstanding last call comments, then there is a more basic failure. Such a document should not have reached the point where a DISCUSS is required to keep it from progressing long enough for the comment to be addressed. Well, it seems rather common that IETF LC comments (especially if not copied to ietf@ietf.org list) are not responded. To reduce delay, it also seems common that IESG telechat is scheduled as soon as possible after IETF LC closes, and document is usually not taken out of the agenda if comments are received during the LC. Also sometimes the document gets approved without there being any record (e.g., on IESG ballots) that some comments had been made but there was no response. Therefore it is not clear to me whether such comment was addressed (I'd call this 'processed') but without public record [e.g., editor or chair] in essence rejecting the comment (possibly in good faith) or not received at all (maybe also in good faith, e.g. if WG mailing list discards non-subscriber posts or the moderator is asleep). Maybe we should be clearer on what the expectation for processing IETF LC comments is. Unless we do, it is not obvious how we could evaluate whether the procedure has been carried out properly or not. -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings ___ 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
Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org
Total of 64 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 12 00:03:01 EST 2007 Messages | Bytes| Who +--++--+ 10.94% |7 | 10.36% |39706 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9.38% |6 | 9.23% |35360 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 7.81% |5 | 6.21% |23807 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6.25% |4 | 7.14% |27368 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4.69% |3 | 7.16% |27458 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6.25% |4 | 5.29% |20269 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4.69% |3 | 6.18% |23678 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4.69% |3 | 6.10% |23364 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4.69% |3 | 4.36% |16691 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3.12% |2 | 3.83% |14664 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3.12% |2 | 3.54% |13571 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3.12% |2 | 3.00% |11495 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3.12% |2 | 2.69% |10327 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3.12% |2 | 2.64% |10110 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.56% |1 | 2.07% | 7944 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.56% |1 | 1.87% | 7151 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.56% |1 | 1.66% | 6354 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.56% |1 | 1.60% | 6151 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.56% |1 | 1.59% | 6095 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.56% |1 | 1.58% | 6074 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.56% |1 | 1.45% | 5557 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.56% |1 | 1.41% | 5423 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.56% |1 | 1.33% | 5089 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.56% |1 | 1.28% | 4907 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.56% |1 | 1.23% | 4717 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.56% |1 | 1.14% | 4350 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.56% |1 | 1.09% | 4185 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.56% |1 | 1.04% | 3967 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.56% |1 | 1.02% | 3891 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.56% |1 | 0.92% | 3533 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] +--++--+ 100.00% | 64 |100.00% | 383256 | Total ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
Hi Frank, on 2007-01-12 13:38 Frank Ellermann said the following: Henrik Levkowetz wrote: It is possible that the simplest resolution in cases where the shepherd is not a chair is to give the shepherd the same access rights as a chair. Hi, do you mean s/Chair/AD/ here ? No. The way I see it, Shepherd 'write' rights would be a subset of the Chair rights, which will be a subset of the AD rights. Henrik ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
Henrik Levkowetz wrote: Hi, do you mean s/Chair/AD/ here ? No. The way I see it, Shepherd 'write' rights would be a subset of the Chair rights, which will be a subset of the AD rights. Why should WG Chairs - if they're not proto-shepherds - have write access on the I-D tracker at all ? A proto-shepherd needs similar access rights as a traditional shepherd - minus posting the approval on the announce list. Probably I'm just confused, that's how I understood the concept so far: Normally the responsible AD (one of the area ADs) is the shepherd. One of the WG Chairs can be nominated as proto shepherd (the Chairs toss a coin or similar). If the responsible AD doesn't want to delegate this task he or she is the shepherd, and there's no problem with write access right. Otherwise the nominated Chair is the proto shepherd and needs write access for certain actions (enter last call, post questionnaire, initiate ballot, etc.) But not participate in the ballot, and not post the approval. With that I'd get Chair rights as subset of proto shepherd rights, not the other way around. Actually I get no Chair rights at all appart from read access like everybody else. Frank ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
Hi Frank, on 2007-01-12 15:37 Frank Ellermann said the following: Henrik Levkowetz wrote: Hi, do you mean s/Chair/AD/ here ? No. The way I see it, Shepherd 'write' rights would be a subset of the Chair rights, which will be a subset of the AD rights. Why should WG Chairs - if they're not proto-shepherds - have write access on the I-D tracker at all ? A proto-shepherd needs similar access rights as a traditional shepherd - minus posting the approval on the announce list. You're looking at this from the perspective of the document shepherding only. The chair access to the tracker is about more than this. The best is probably to point to the draft regarding this proposed extension of the tracker: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-tracker-ext (There's a snapshot of the current working copy available too, which has some changes based on recent discussion on the proto and wgchairs lists: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/proto/draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-tracker-ext/draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-tracker-ext-02.b.txt ) Probably I'm just confused, that's how I understood the concept so far: Normally the responsible AD (one of the area ADs) is the shepherd. One of the WG Chairs can be nominated as proto shepherd (the Chairs toss a coin or similar). If the responsible AD doesn't want to delegate this task he or she is the shepherd, and there's no problem with write access right. Otherwise the nominated Chair is the proto shepherd and needs write access for certain actions (enter last call, post questionnaire, initiate ballot, etc.) But not participate in the ballot, and not post the approval. Right. Those are restricted actions. With that I'd get Chair rights as subset of proto shepherd rights, not the other way around. Actually I get no Chair rights at all appart from read access like everybody else. Right, except for the broader perspective when you regard chair tasks outside of shepherding. Henrik ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
Let me ask a silly question here: Why do we want to distinguish proto shepherds from chairs? I at least hope all my WGs will produce documents. That means most of my chairs will be proto shepherds. Does the difference matter? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: addressing Last Call comments [Re: Discuss criteria]
Henning == Henning Schulzrinne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Henning Putting all comments, including DISCUSS, into a Henning document-specific issue tracker would be most Henning helpful. (It would be helpful even beyond publication of Henning an RFC, as we have found for the SIP documents, as they Henning can be used to gather issues that a future bis effort Agreed provided that it is simple for me to open a new issue from my email client, turn an email discussion into an issue, resolve and issue using email, etc. Also, I need to be able to update multiple issues in an email message, etc etc. Basically, I'm OK with an issue tracker provided that it does not increase the complexity for those doing cross-area review who want to open up a bunch of issues and manipulate them. Especially using a web based issue tracker is a non-starter from that standpoint. (You do probably want a web interface to any issue tracker; you just don't want to destroy the existing interface.) It is possible to meet these requirements in an issue tracker design. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
Hi Sam, on 2007-01-12 22:04 Sam Hartman said the following: Let me ask a silly question here: Why do we want to distinguish proto shepherds from chairs? I at least hope all my WGs will produce documents. That means most of my chairs will be proto shepherds. Does the difference matter? Since I'm in the To: list of your mail, I'm a bit baffled by your question; my proposed solution in my earlier message to the list was to not make a difference between the two... Still, if you're asking what could conceivably be the difference, my answer would be that it's appropriate for a chair to set the WG state of documents which haven't yet been submitted to the IESG; while it's (mostly) not appropriate for a Document Shepherd to do so. Henrik signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
On Jan 12, 2007, at 6:28 AM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: That said, I _do_ wish the tracker would maintain history of DISCUSS and COMMENT comments, instead of only showing the latest ballot text. It does. Click view details, and you get the substance of the commentary. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Last Call: draft-ietf-eai-framework (Overview and Framework for Internationalized Email) to Informational RFC
The IESG has received a request from the Email Address Internationalization WG (eai) to consider the following document: - 'Overview and Framework for Internationalized Email ' draft-ietf-eai-framework-04.txt as an Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2007-01-26. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-eai-framework-04.txt IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_iddTag=14701rfc_flag=0 ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
Last Call: draft-legg-xed-asd (Abstract Syntax Notation X (ASN.X)) to Proposed Standard
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following documents: - 'Abstract Syntax Notation X (ASN.X) Representation of Encoding Instructions for the XML Encoding Rules (XER) ' draft-legg-xed-asd-xerei-03.txt as a Proposed Standard - 'Encoding Instructions for the Robust XML Encoding Rules (RXER) ' draft-legg-xed-rxer-ei-04.txt as a Proposed Standard - 'Abstract Syntax Notation X (ASN.X) Representation of Encoding Instructions for the Generic String Encoding Rules (GSER) ' draft-legg-xed-asd-gserei-03.txt as a Proposed Standard - 'Robust XML Encoding Rules (RXER) for Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) ' draft-legg-xed-rxer-07.txt as a Proposed Standard - 'Abstract Syntax Notation X (ASN.X) ' draft-legg-xed-asd-07.txt as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2007-02-14. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-legg-xed-asd-xerei-03.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-legg-xed-rxer-ei-04.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-legg-xed-asd-gserei-03.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-legg-xed-rxer-07.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-legg-xed-asd-07.txt IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_iddTag=10739rfc_flag=0 ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
