Re: [Tools-discuss] independant submissions that update standards track, and datatracker
On 10/2/2013 9:15 AM, Scott O Bradner wrote: 1 April RFCs excepted Ah. I'm sitting here banging my head on a desk thinking "I knew that" ... thanks, Scott! Spencer
Re: [Tools-discuss] independant submissions that update standards track, and datatracker
Abdussalam Baryun wrote: >> While I think that individual submissions that are not the result of >> consensus do not belong on a WG page. > Where do they belong? I prefer > that they belong under the Area page, but is there an area page, > not sure why was that not a good idea. 1) Please stop this discussion, or at least change the subject. I don't think that one can have an independant submission that is standards track, that is not the result of (at least IESG) consensus. 2) If you quote, please include attribution.
RE: [Tools-discuss] independant submissions that update standards track, and datatracker
>While I think that individual submissions that are not the result of consensus do not belong on a WG page. Where do they belong? I prefer that they belong under the Area page, but is there an area page, not sure why was that not a good idea. > But, if the document was the result of > consensus, but did not occur in a WG because the WG had closed, I think > that > perhaps it should appear there anyway. > I agree, but still I think an area page is required, some day in the future may be the Area will expire or be changed by the community, so don't we should think where is the history of these areas. Also our procedural RFCs and BCPs are not related to General Area, I prefer to see them all under an area related, some day this general area may change as well (may be called Procedural Area). I agree that the way documents are related to IETF-fields or IETF-areas is not an easy way for tracking information, also the documents are not much connected but more separated (IETF is divided in WGs which creates division/differences in documents of the same field). As once one AD proposed Cross-Areas in IETF, I want to add proposing Cross-WGs, all are responsible for related issues in IETF (i.e. Areas and Groups). AB
Re: [Tools-discuss] independant submissions that update standards track, and datatracker
1 April RFCs excepted Scott On Oct 2, 2013, at 10:10 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: >> "because all IETF document are examined by IESG" >> >> No they're not. See RFC4844. > > Lloyd, it *is* true that all documents in the IETF stream are reviewed > and approved by the IESG. I would take "IETF documents" to refer to > documents in the IETF stream. > > (In fact, documents in the IRTF and Independent streams are also > "examined" by the IESG, but only for conflict review, according to RFC > 5742. The only RFCs that the IESG doesn't look at in any formal way > are those in the IAB stream.) > > Barry, Applications AD
Re: [Tools-discuss] independant submissions that update standards track, and datatracker
> "because all IETF document are examined by IESG" > > No they're not. See RFC4844. Lloyd, it *is* true that all documents in the IETF stream are reviewed and approved by the IESG. I would take "IETF documents" to refer to documents in the IETF stream. (In fact, documents in the IRTF and Independent streams are also "examined" by the IESG, but only for conflict review, according to RFC 5742. The only RFCs that the IESG doesn't look at in any formal way are those in the IAB stream.) Barry, Applications AD
RE: [Tools-discuss] independant submissions that update standards track, and datatracker
"because all IETF document are examined by IESG" No they're not. See RFC4844. Lloyd Wood http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/ From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun [abdussalambar...@gmail.com] Sent: 02 October 2013 13:18 To: Michael Richardson Cc: ietf; tools-disc...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] independant submissions that update standards track, and datatracker Hi Michael, I agree that it should appear in related WG's field or area. I see in IETF we have WGs documents list but not areas' documents list, so the individual document may not be found or discovered. I think any document of IETF should be listed in its field area or related charter, but it seems like the culture of IETF focusing on groups work not on the IETF documents. For example, when I first joined MANET WG I thought that RFC3753 is related because it is IETF, but in one discussion one participant did not accept to use that document even though it was related. Fuethermore, some WGs don't comment on related documents to their WG, which I think this should change in future IETF culture (e.g. there was one individual doc that was requested by AD to comment on by the WG but no respond). Therefore, IMHO, the IETF is divided by groups with different point of views/documents and they force their WG Adopted-Work to list documents (not all related to Group-Charters), but it seems that managemnet does not see that there is a division in knowledge or in outputs of the IETF, which a new comer may see it clearly. I recommend to focus/list documents related to Charter, not related to WG adoptions, because all IETF document are examined by IESG. AB On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Michael Richardson mailto:mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>> wrote: This morning I had reason to re-read parts of RFC3777, and anything that updated it. I find the datatracker WG interface to really be useful, and so I visited http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nomcom/ first. I guess I could have instead gone to: http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3777 but frankly, I'm often bad with numbers, especially when they repeat... (3777? 3737? 3733?) While http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nomcom/ lists RFC3777, and in that line, it lists the things that update it, it doesn't actually list the other documents. Thinking this was an error, I asked, and Cindy kindly explained: >http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nomcom/ lists the documents that were >published by the NOMCOM Working Group. The NOMCOM Working Group was >open from 2002-2004, and only produced one RFC, which is RFC 3777. > >The RFCs that update 3777 were all produced by individuals (that is, >outside of the NOMCOM Working Group), and so aren't listed individually >on the NOMCOM Working Group documents page. I wonder about this as a policy. Seeing the titles of those documents would have helped me find what I wanted quickly (RFC5680 it was)... While I think that individual submissions that are not the result of consensus do not belong on a WG page. But, if the document was the result of consensus, but did not occur in a WG because the WG had closed, I think that perhaps it should appear there anyway. -- Michael Richardson mailto:mcr%2bi...@sandelman.ca>>, Sandelman Software Works ___ Tools-discuss mailing list tools-disc...@ietf.org<mailto:tools-disc...@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
RE: [Tools-discuss] independant submissions that update standards track, and datatracker
Irrepressible Yours Irrespectively, John From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 5:19 AM To: Michael Richardson Cc: ietf; tools-disc...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] independant submissions that update standards track, and datatracker Hi Michael, I agree that it should appear in related WG's field or area. I see in IETF we have WGs documents list but not areas' documents list, so the individual document may not be found or discovered. I think any document of IETF should be listed in its field area or related charter, but it seems like the culture of IETF focusing on groups work not on the IETF documents. For example, when I first joined MANET WG I thought that RFC3753 is related because it is IETF, but in one discussion one participant did not accept to use that document even though it was related. Fuethermore, some WGs don't comment on related documents to their WG, which I think this should change in future IETF culture (e.g. there was one individual doc that was requested by AD to comment on by the WG but no respond). Therefore, IMHO, the IETF is divided by groups with different point of views/documents and they force their WG Adopted-Work to list documents (not all related to Group-Charters), but it seems that managemnet does not see that there is a division in knowledge or in outputs of the IETF, which a new comer may see it clearly. I recommend to focus/list documents related to Charter, not related to WG adoptions, because all IETF document are examined by IESG. AB On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Michael Richardson mailto:mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>> wrote: This morning I had reason to re-read parts of RFC3777, and anything that updated it. I find the datatracker WG interface to really be useful, and so I visited http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nomcom/ first. I guess I could have instead gone to: http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3777 but frankly, I'm often bad with numbers, especially when they repeat... (3777? 3737? 3733?) While http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nomcom/ lists RFC3777, and in that line, it lists the things that update it, it doesn't actually list the other documents. Thinking this was an error, I asked, and Cindy kindly explained: >http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nomcom/ lists the documents that were >published by the NOMCOM Working Group. The NOMCOM Working Group was >open from 2002-2004, and only produced one RFC, which is RFC 3777. > >The RFCs that update 3777 were all produced by individuals (that is, >outside of the NOMCOM Working Group), and so aren't listed individually >on the NOMCOM Working Group documents page. I wonder about this as a policy. Seeing the titles of those documents would have helped me find what I wanted quickly (RFC5680 it was)... While I think that individual submissions that are not the result of consensus do not belong on a WG page. But, if the document was the result of consensus, but did not occur in a WG because the WG had closed, I think that perhaps it should appear there anyway. -- Michael Richardson mailto:mcr%2bi...@sandelman.ca>>, Sandelman Software Works ___ Tools-discuss mailing list tools-disc...@ietf.org<mailto:tools-disc...@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
Re: [Tools-discuss] independant submissions that update standards track, and datatracker
Hi Michael, I agree that it should appear in related WG's field or area. I see in IETF we have WGs documents list but not areas' documents list, so the individual document may not be found or discovered. I think any document of IETF should be listed in its field area or related charter, but it seems like the culture of IETF focusing on groups work not on the IETF documents. For example, when I first joined MANET WG I thought that RFC3753 is related because it is IETF, but in one discussion one participant did not accept to use that document even though it was related. Fuethermore, some WGs don't comment on related documents to their WG, which I think this should change in future IETF culture (e.g. there was one individual doc that was requested by AD to comment on by the WG but no respond). Therefore, IMHO, the IETF is divided by groups with different point of views/documents and they force their WG Adopted-Work to list documents (not all related to Group-Charters), but it seems that managemnet does not see that there is a division in knowledge or in outputs of the IETF, which a new comer may see it clearly. I recommend to focus/list documents related to Charter, not related to WG adoptions, because all IETF document are examined by IESG. AB On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: > > This morning I had reason to re-read parts of RFC3777, and anything > that updated it. I find the datatracker WG interface to really be > useful, and so I visited http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nomcom/ > first. I guess I could have instead gone to: >http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3777 > > but frankly, I'm often bad with numbers, especially when they repeat... > (3777? 3737? 3733?) > > While http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nomcom/ lists RFC3777, and > in that line, it lists the things that update it, it doesn't actually list > the other documents. Thinking this was an error, I asked, and Cindy kindly > explained: > > >http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nomcom/ lists the documents that were > >published by the NOMCOM Working Group. The NOMCOM Working Group was > >open from 2002-2004, and only produced one RFC, which is RFC 3777. > > > >The RFCs that update 3777 were all produced by individuals (that is, > >outside of the NOMCOM Working Group), and so aren't listed individually > >on the NOMCOM Working Group documents page. > > I wonder about this as a policy. > > Seeing the titles of those documents would have helped me find what I > wanted > quickly (RFC5680 it was)... > > While I think that individual submissions that are not the result of > consensus do not belong on a WG page. But, if the document was the result > of > consensus, but did not occur in a WG because the WG had closed, I think > that > perhaps it should appear there anyway. > > -- > Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works > > > > ___ > Tools-discuss mailing list > tools-disc...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss > >
