Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
"Adrian Farrel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > By the way, would it be possible for all DISCUSSes and COMMENTs for > I-Ds originated by a working group to be *automatically* copied to the > mailing list of the working group? The reasons are: > - the WG chairs, editors, and interested parties should > not have to monitor the I-D tracker to spot them > - there is otherwise no automatic archiving of the > follow-up discussions > - it can often be hard to tell from the record > how/if/why a DISCUSS was cleared (the entries in > the I-D tracker do not usually show this information) > - the WG has an obvious interest in the follow-up > discussions > - if the discussions result in changes to the I-D the > WG really needs to be kept in the loop I agree, something along those steps seems quite useful. My experience is that not all of the people who have an interest in a document reads and thinks about DISCUSS/COMMENT's. In some cases, I recall that COMMENTs were not even forwarded to me as document author, I had to find them in the I-D tracker myself. I think this has changed now, but doing what you suggest would go even further to make sure that the IESG comments are widely seen and thought about. /Simon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
Agreement, but niggles As Spencer has noted, a DISCUSS often passes through several iterations from the time a concern is raised to the time it's clear what has to be discussed with the WG. I think it would make the IESG's work more difficult if every iteration of such DISCUSSes were copied to the WG. If formulated as a notification at a convenient place in the procedure, for instance "1 day after a telechat, the current status of all ballots discussed that still have DISCUSSes get copied to the WG", I think it would be more useful than "the WG gets copies of every iteration". As a completely random example, draft-ietf-ipv6-over-ppp-v2-02 currently has 2 DISCUSSes. The tracker log shows 4 entered DISCUSSes (some revisions) and 6 COMMENTs - 10 mails to the WG mailing list seems excessive, while 1 mail seems more likely to be seen as useful. Harald --On 7. januar 2007 11:17 +0100 Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Adrian Farrel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: By the way, would it be possible for all DISCUSSes and COMMENTs for I-Ds originated by a working group to be *automatically* copied to the mailing list of the working group? The reasons are: - the WG chairs, editors, and interested parties should not have to monitor the I-D tracker to spot them - there is otherwise no automatic archiving of the follow-up discussions - it can often be hard to tell from the record how/if/why a DISCUSS was cleared (the entries in the I-D tracker do not usually show this information) - the WG has an obvious interest in the follow-up discussions - if the discussions result in changes to the I-D the WG really needs to be kept in the loop I agree, something along those steps seems quite useful. My experience is that not all of the people who have an interest in a document reads and thinks about DISCUSS/COMMENT's. In some cases, I recall that COMMENTs were not even forwarded to me as document author, I had to find them in the I-D tracker myself. I think this has changed now, but doing what you suggest would go even further to make sure that the IESG comments are widely seen and thought about. /Simon ___ 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: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
The I-D tracker provides a handy button for the DISCUSSing AD to forward the DISCUSS to parties outside the IESG - normally by default it's the WG Chairs. I'm not convinced personally that sending the raw DISCUSS to the whole WG is the correct answer. Sometimes it can be quickly resolved (for example if it's a technical typo, or a simple misconception by the discussing AD). Other times, it definitely does need WG discussion. I think it's best to leave this in the hands of the WG chairs to decide case-by-case. Brian On 2007-01-08 08:08, Harald Alvestrand wrote: Agreement, but niggles As Spencer has noted, a DISCUSS often passes through several iterations from the time a concern is raised to the time it's clear what has to be discussed with the WG. I think it would make the IESG's work more difficult if every iteration of such DISCUSSes were copied to the WG. If formulated as a notification at a convenient place in the procedure, for instance "1 day after a telechat, the current status of all ballots discussed that still have DISCUSSes get copied to the WG", I think it would be more useful than "the WG gets copies of every iteration". As a completely random example, draft-ietf-ipv6-over-ppp-v2-02 currently has 2 DISCUSSes. The tracker log shows 4 entered DISCUSSes (some revisions) and 6 COMMENTs - 10 mails to the WG mailing list seems excessive, while 1 mail seems more likely to be seen as useful. Harald --On 7. januar 2007 11:17 +0100 Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Adrian Farrel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: By the way, would it be possible for all DISCUSSes and COMMENTs for I-Ds originated by a working group to be *automatically* copied to the mailing list of the working group? The reasons are: - the WG chairs, editors, and interested parties should not have to monitor the I-D tracker to spot them - there is otherwise no automatic archiving of the follow-up discussions - it can often be hard to tell from the record how/if/why a DISCUSS was cleared (the entries in the I-D tracker do not usually show this information) - the WG has an obvious interest in the follow-up discussions - if the discussions result in changes to the I-D the WG really needs to be kept in the loop I agree, something along those steps seems quite useful. My experience is that not all of the people who have an interest in a document reads and thinks about DISCUSS/COMMENT's. In some cases, I recall that COMMENTs were not even forwarded to me as document author, I had to find them in the I-D tracker myself. I think this has changed now, but doing what you suggest would go even further to make sure that the IESG comments are widely seen and thought about. /Simon ___ 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 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
Brian, The I-D tracker provides a handy button for the DISCUSSing AD to forward the DISCUSS to parties outside the IESG - normally by default it's the WG Chairs. Brian, I am not suggesting that IESG has to do anything different. Let them continue to raise their DISCUSSes through the I-D tracker. It is the right tool for the job. But note that the current version of the tracker does not raise the DISCUSS with anyone. It simply logs it. Let us at least start by having all DISCUSSes and COMMENTS automatically forwarded to the WG chairs. These notes arrive in the tracker at pseudo-random times and it must be a very diligent chair that spots them all. If we don't do this then they simply are not DISCUSSes. They are just post-it notes. But regardless of this, I am concerned that the resolution of a DISCUSS is not archived anywhere. If you want to restrict the DISCUSS from reaching the WG unless the WG chair decides, then you MUST log the resolution (not just the fact of reslution) of each DISCUSS in the I-D tracker. I'm not convinced personally that sending the raw DISCUSS to the whole WG is the correct answer. Sometimes it can be quickly resolved (for example if it's a technical typo, or a simple misconception by the discussing AD). In which case, no damage done by sending it to the WG? A slight increase in traffic on the mailing list. So what? And, do you assume that the WG chair is the best person to resolve these simple issues? The chair may also suffer from the same simple misconception resulting in the wrong thing happening to the I-D. Other times, it definitely does need WG discussion. I think it's best to leave this in the hands of the WG chairs to decide case-by-case. Well, assuming that the DISCUSS arrives at the WG chair as an email, this might be a reasonable compromise. But it seems like make-work to me. Harald said... As Spencer has noted, a DISCUSS often passes through several iterations from the time a concern is raised to the time it's clear what has to be discussed with the WG. I think it would make the IESG's work more difficult if every iteration of such DISCUSSes were copied to the WG. Hmmm. Would this work be more difficult because of the very large flood of email responses that would be generated? (I don't think this would happen with any of the WGs I follow!) Or is there some other reason? It can't be a matter of politics or fear of being out-spoken because the DISCUSS is public domain anyway. If formulated as a notification at a convenient place in the procedure, for instance "1 day after a telechat, the current status of all ballots discussed that still have DISCUSSes get copied to the WG", I think it would be more useful than "the WG gets copies of every iteration". As a completely random example, draft-ietf-ipv6-over-ppp-v2-02 currently has 2 DISCUSSes. The tracker log shows 4 entered DISCUSSes (some revisions) and 6 COMMENTs - 10 mails to the WG mailing list seems excessive, while 1 mail seems more likely to be seen as useful. I completely disagree! The WG needs to know that it is completing last call on I-Ds that are not making it through review smoothly. How else will the WG improve its output? Looking at this particular I-D, the I-D tracker seems to be being used for conversations between IESG members. A bit odd, perhaps? Adrian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
On 2007-01-08 12:03, Adrian Farrel wrote: Brian, The I-D tracker provides a handy button for the DISCUSSing AD to forward the DISCUSS to parties outside the IESG - normally by default it's the WG Chairs. Brian, I am not suggesting that IESG has to do anything different. Let them continue to raise their DISCUSSes through the I-D tracker. It is the right tool for the job. But note that the current version of the tracker does not raise the DISCUSS with anyone. It simply logs it. Let us at least start by having all DISCUSSes and COMMENTS automatically forwarded to the WG chairs. These notes arrive in the tracker at pseudo-random times and it must be a very diligent chair that spots them all. Indeed. And that's what I was saying - the AD registering a DISCUSS has a button to press that does exactly that (+/- some UI details). I was under the impression that all ADs do that, except for very unusual cases. If we don't do this then they simply are not DISCUSSes. They are just post-it notes. But regardless of this, I am concerned that the resolution of a DISCUSS is not archived anywhere. If you want to restrict the DISCUSS from reaching the WG unless the WG chair decides, then you MUST log the resolution (not just the fact of reslution) of each DISCUSS in the I-D tracker. Well, there are really only three main ways a DISCUSS gets resolved: 1. The AD withdraws it 2. The I-D gets updated 3. A Note to the RFC Editor is inserted in the tracker (There are certainly corner cases beyond those, but those are the large majority). These are all tracked events. What we don't have is a comment added to the DISCUSS saying "resolved by version -17" or whatever. Is that needed? I'm not convinced personally that sending the raw DISCUSS to the whole WG is the correct answer. Sometimes it can be quickly resolved (for example if it's a technical typo, or a simple misconception by the discussing AD). In which case, no damage done by sending it to the WG? A slight increase in traffic on the mailing list. So what? I think you will find a variety of opinion on that. And, do you assume that the WG chair is the best person to resolve these simple issues? The chair may also suffer from the same simple misconception resulting in the wrong thing happening to the I-D. But the WG Chair is the PROTO shepherd and does have responsibility. Other times, it definitely does need WG discussion. I think it's best to leave this in the hands of the WG chairs to decide case-by-case. Well, assuming that the DISCUSS arrives at the WG chair as an email, this might be a reasonable compromise. But it seems like make-work to me. Harald said... As Spencer has noted, a DISCUSS often passes through several iterations from the time a concern is raised to the time it's clear what has to be discussed with the WG. I think it would make the IESG's work more difficult if every iteration of such DISCUSSes were copied to the WG. Hmmm. Would this work be more difficult because of the very large flood of email responses that would be generated? (I don't think this would happen with any of the WGs I follow!) Or is there some other reason? It can't be a matter of politics or fear of being out-spoken because the DISCUSS is public domain anyway. If formulated as a notification at a convenient place in the procedure, for instance "1 day after a telechat, the current status of all ballots discussed that still have DISCUSSes get copied to the WG", I think it would be more useful than "the WG gets copies of every iteration". As a completely random example, draft-ietf-ipv6-over-ppp-v2-02 currently has 2 DISCUSSes. The tracker log shows 4 entered DISCUSSes (some revisions) and 6 COMMENTs - 10 mails to the WG mailing list seems excessive, while 1 mail seems more likely to be seen as useful. I completely disagree! The WG needs to know that it is completing last call on I-Ds that are not making it through review smoothly. How else will the WG improve its output? Looking at this particular I-D, the I-D tracker seems to be being used for conversations between IESG members. A bit odd, perhaps? Well, it puts that conversation on the public record. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
But regardless of this, I am concerned that the resolution of a DISCUSS is not archived anywhere. If you want to restrict the DISCUSS from reaching the WG unless the WG chair decides, then you MUST log the resolution (not just the fact of reslution) of each DISCUSS in the I-D tracker. Well, there are really only three main ways a DISCUSS gets resolved: 1. The AD withdraws it 2. The I-D gets updated 3. A Note to the RFC Editor is inserted in the tracker (There are certainly corner cases beyond those, but those are the large majority). These are all tracked events. What we don't have is a comment added to the DISCUSS saying "resolved by version -17" or whatever. Is that needed? Not sure if that is needed. What I am interested in seeing is a record of what the resolution of the DISCUSS was (i.e. the technical substance of the resolution). Thus, using your examples, 1. Why did the AD withdraw the DISCUSS? Was some information forthcoming that made it clear? Was the AD brow-beaten into submission? 2. What updates were made to the I-D to address this particular DISCUSS? (It does not follow that all changes to the I-D were in response to this DISCUSS.) And why were these changes suitable to address the DISCUSS? 3. Are notes to the RFC Editor inserted in the I-D tracker? I certainly haven't seen them there in the past. In any case, we would still like to see why this note to the RFC Editor is suitable to address the DISCUSS. In short, we want some record of the discussions that lead to a change (any change) to a draft that has completed Working Group last call and completed IETF last call. It is not that we do not trust the combination of IESG, WG chairs and document Editors to make these changes and refer back to the WG when necessary. It is that we cannot see what changes were made and the associated whys. I am still finding it hard to see why this should not be in more open view of the working group. In which case, no damage done by sending it to the WG? A slight increase in traffic on the mailing list. So what? I think you will find a variety of opinion on that. Not expressed on this mailing list so far. And, do you assume that the WG chair is the best person to resolve these simple issues? The chair may also suffer from the same simple misconception resulting in the wrong thing happening to the I-D. But the WG Chair is the PROTO shepherd and does have responsibility. The PROTO shepherd has this responsiblity and may be the WG chair? So the WG chair is falible. Isn't that a good reason to allow the community to see the conversation? As a completely random example, draft-ietf-ipv6-over-ppp-v2-02 currently has 2 DISCUSSes. The tracker log shows 4 entered DISCUSSes (some revisions) and 6 COMMENTs - 10 mails to the WG mailing list seems excessive, while 1 mail seems more likely to be seen as useful. I completely disagree! The WG needs to know that it is completing last call on I-Ds that are not making it through review smoothly. How else will the WG improve its output? Looking at this particular I-D, the I-D tracker seems to be being used for conversations between IESG members. A bit odd, perhaps? Well, it puts that conversation on the public record. Yes. That is true. How about allowing PROTO shepherds to post to the I-D tracker? Adrian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
Adrian Farrel wrote: > 3. Are notes to the RFC Editor inserted in the I-D tracker? >I certainly haven't seen them there in the past. It's at the end of the "IESG evaluation record". There you'll find a draft of the approval announcement, and that contains Note to RFC editor + IESG note + IANA note (if any), example: https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2253 >In any case, we would still like to see why this note to >the RFC Editor is suitable to address the DISCUSS. If the discussion triggered by a DISCUSS in in private mails or on the WG list you won't find it in the tracker. But you see *_when_* it was cleared, so if there's a new I-D between the DISCUSS and the updated ballot it's probably related. BTW, the new "last call" boilerplate is better, thanks to (wild guess) Lisa. Among other improvements it has a link to the draft tracker. >> But the WG Chair is the PROTO shepherd and does have >> responsibility. > The PROTO shepherd has this responsiblity and may be the > WG chair? Yes, they're supposed to watch the tracker and report issues to the WG and/or authors. Of course the responsible AD is free to shepherd the procedure directly. The shepherds also check that RFC editor + authors don't introduce substantial modifications in AUTH48 (the last weak point in this maze - but IMO the most critical point is the "Note to RFC editor", apparently we're supposed to check this step and to cry foul a.s.a.p., ideally before the approval is published). > How about allowing PROTO shepherds to post to the I-D tracker? Can't they ? At least the questionnaire (modulo 1F) is posted. Frank ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
Cutting to the chase: > How about allowing PROTO shepherds to post to the I-D tracker? See whether draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-tracker-ext-01.txt covers what you want. If not, immediately would be a very good time to tell the PROTO team. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
"Adrian Farrel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > But note that the current version of the tracker does not raise the > DISCUSS with anyone. It simply logs it. I agree, and think this is an important observation. This lack of communication may cause friction. IESG members raise issues, which ends up the tracker, and for which they might not receive any response at all on. They may get the impression that the document author is inactive and not following up on problems raised (at least I would get that impression if I were preparing comments on others' document). The document author instead wonders why no comments or questions are generated by the IESG evaluation process. Having notification for these issues may avoid some of that friction, and would lead to better documents. I am inclined to agree with Harald that excessive notifications, for every DISCUSS/COMMENT may be annoying. On the other hand, for most WG's, sending a document to the IESG is an important step, and any feedback from that process should be important and valuable. Anyway, reducing the number of e-mails by waiting a week or two before compiling a message with all DISCUSS/COMMENTS seems like a good idea. Btw, I personally first discovered the I-D tracker when I was revising a document that had failed IETF last call before, and found COMMENT/DISCUSS for my earlier document, which I had not been aware of before. I believe taking care of those COMMENT/DISCUSS'es helped the document pass the second IETF last call. > But regardless of this, I am concerned that the resolution of a > DISCUSS is not archived anywhere. If you want to restrict the DISCUSS > from reaching the WG unless the WG chair decides, then you MUST log > the resolution (not just the fact of reslution) of each DISCUSS in the > I-D tracker. It would be good to log resolutions, yes. If for no other reasons, someone who reads the I-D tracker history for a document may wonder what the answer to a particular question was. /Simon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
I have had the same experience. The tracker is not mentioned in any of the process documents or the desription of ietf process or the web site (which continues to be useless). The impression is of a clique who know their procedures internally, do nothing to explain them to others then get highly anoyed when their procedures are not followed. I am reminded of the planning department in Cruddy Cottington. Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com) -Original Message- From: Simon Josefsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 04:47 AM Pacific Standard Time To: Adrian Farrel Cc: Harald Alvestrand; ietf@ietf.org Subject:Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes "Adrian Farrel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > But note that the current version of the tracker does not raise the > DISCUSS with anyone. It simply logs it. I agree, and think this is an important observation. This lack of communication may cause friction. IESG members raise issues, which ends up the tracker, and for which they might not receive any response at all on. They may get the impression that the document author is inactive and not following up on problems raised (at least I would get that impression if I were preparing comments on others' document). The document author instead wonders why no comments or questions are generated by the IESG evaluation process. Having notification for these issues may avoid some of that friction, and would lead to better documents. I am inclined to agree with Harald that excessive notifications, for every DISCUSS/COMMENT may be annoying. On the other hand, for most WG's, sending a document to the IESG is an important step, and any feedback from that process should be important and valuable. Anyway, reducing the number of e-mails by waiting a week or two before compiling a message with all DISCUSS/COMMENTS seems like a good idea. Btw, I personally first discovered the I-D tracker when I was revising a document that had failed IETF last call before, and found COMMENT/DISCUSS for my earlier document, which I had not been aware of before. I believe taking care of those COMMENT/DISCUSS'es helped the document pass the second IETF last call. > But regardless of this, I am concerned that the resolution of a > DISCUSS is not archived anywhere. If you want to restrict the DISCUSS > from reaching the WG unless the WG chair decides, then you MUST log > the resolution (not just the fact of reslution) of each DISCUSS in the > I-D tracker. It would be good to log resolutions, yes. If for no other reasons, someone who reads the I-D tracker history for a document may wonder what the answer to a particular question was. /Simon ___ 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: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
On 2007-01-09 14:03, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: ... The tracker is not mentioned in any of the process documents That is normal; it's a tool used in support of the process, and we could in theory use papyrus rolls instead. I agree we need procedural documents too; that is what IONs are for in fact. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 05:03:57 -0800 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have had the same experience. > > The tracker is not mentioned in any of the process documents or the > desription of ietf process or the web site (which continues to be > useless). > > The impression is of a clique who know their procedures internally, > do nothing to explain them to others then get highly anoyed when > their procedures are not followed. > > I am reminded of the planning department in Cruddy Cottington. > > While more information is always good, I'll note that it's linked to from the WG Chairs page; it, in turn, is listed on the IETF home page. There's also a link from each WG's charter page to the status page which lists every document from the WG and its status. The status field, in turn, is a link to the tracker page for that I-D. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
While more information is always good, I'll note that it's linked to from the WG Chairs page; it, in turn, is listed on the IETF home page. There's also a link from each WG's charter page to the status page which lists every document from the WG and its status. The status field, in turn, is a link to the tracker page for that I-D. Also we've added a link to the tracker in IETF Last Call messages, just recently. And of course it's linked off the IESG page linked off the IETF home page. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
On Monday, January 08, 2007 11:03:00 AM + Adrian Farrel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If we don't do this then they simply are not DISCUSSes. They are just post-it notes. Not true. Remember that DISCUSS is a ballot position. As I understand it from my conversation with an IESG member several years ago, its meaning is "I think there is an issue the IESG needs to discuss". As Spencer described, in many cases the resulting discussion satisfies the concerns of that IESG member, and the ballot position is changed to something else. Sometimes that happens prior to the telechat - if the issue is "I don't think we can paint the walls bright black", the sponsoring AD may reply out of band and say "yes, but the document says to paint them bright _blue_", and the issue is resolved even before the telechat. So, in many cases the WG does not need to be involved in such a discussion. Copying the WG on every such note would only generate confusion and invite people to start arguing in situations where doing so is premature and wasteful. That said, I _do_ wish the tracker would maintain history of DISCUSS and COMMENT comments, instead of only showing the latest ballot text. -- Jeff ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
On Monday, January 08, 2007 12:52:16 PM +0100 Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This lack of communication may cause friction. IESG members raise issues, which ends up the tracker, and for which they might not receive any response at all on. They may get the impression that the document author is inactive and not following up on problems raised (at least I would get that impression if I were preparing comments on others' document). The document author instead wonders why no comments or questions are generated by the IESG evaluation process. This indicates a failure on the part of the document shepherd, who is responsible for fostering that communication and for following up to make sure issues are resolved, and who _does_ get email for every tracker state change. -- Jeff ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
On Monday, January 08, 2007 08:09:58 PM +0100 Frank Ellermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: How about allowing PROTO shepherds to post to the I-D tracker? Can't they ? At least the questionnaire (modulo 1F) is posted. Not at present. The writeup is posted by whoever processed the shepherd's request for publication (to iesg-secretary, which AFAIK is an RT queue). Further changes are generally made as necessary and appropriate by the IESG secretary, the AD who placed a DISCUSS, or the sponsoring AD, who is supposed to be copied on all of the shepherd's communication regarding the document. IIRC, there ws a plan at least at one time to provide greater access to shepherds, such as the ability to post comments on one of their documents and perhaps even make certain state changes. However, the tracker's access control model was somewhat primitive. 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? -- Jeff ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
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
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: 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: 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
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
Hey, I had promised to keep out of this having already used my quota of emails for the months, but then Fred said... 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. May be it *could* do that, but this would require that someone was updating that entry in the tracker with the historical discussion. AFAIK no-one does this. So we just see the original text of the DISCUSS, and sometime later something like "DISCUSS cleared". It would be so useful to be able to see what was done to clear the DISCUSS. Hopefully, once shepherd can tend their sheep (oh, sorry, make additions to the I-D tracker) it should be possible, although still not mandatory, for someone to document the closure (not just the fact of closure) on all DISCUSSes. Adrian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
On 2007-01-13 12:32, Adrian Farrel wrote: Hey, I had promised to keep out of this having already used my quota of emails for the months, but then Fred said... 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. May be it *could* do that, but this would require that someone was updating that entry in the tracker with the historical discussion. AFAIK no-one does this. So we just see the original text of the DISCUSS, and sometime later something like "DISCUSS cleared". It would be so useful to be able to see what was done to clear the DISCUSS. Hopefully, once shepherd can tend their sheep (oh, sorry, make additions to the I-D tracker) it should be possible, although still not mandatory, for someone to document the closure (not just the fact of closure) on all DISCUSSes. Adrian, If an AD modifies their DISCUSS text, or moves a DISCUSS to a COMMENT, all that is in the tracker. What isn't there is the email trail. Are you suggesting we should consider capturing all relevant email threads in the tracker? Having some experience of RT which does exactly that, I frankly doubt the value except for archaeologists. But I suppose it could be done, e.g. by opening an RT ticket for each thread and linking it into the I-D tracker. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
On 2007-01-08 11:08, Brian E Carpenter wrote: The I-D tracker provides a handy button for the DISCUSSing AD to forward the DISCUSS to parties outside the IESG - normally by default it's the WG Chairs. I'm not convinced personally that sending the raw DISCUSS to the whole WG is the correct answer. Sometimes it can be quickly resolved (for example if it's a technical typo, or a simple misconception by the discussing AD). Other times, it definitely does need WG discussion. I think it's best to leave this in the hands of the WG chairs to decide case-by-case. Brian The IESG has talked about this a bit (by email) and I think I'd summarise informally by saying a) we believe that it is indeed the document shepherd's job to summarise issues and take them back to the WG, as stated in section 3.3 of draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding. b) this doesn't remove the need for as much transparency and tracking of issues as is practical, via the tracker, email archives, or whatever tools work best. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
Hi Brian, If an AD modifies their DISCUSS text, or moves a DISCUSS to a COMMENT, all that is in the tracker. Yes. I agree. *If*. Some ADs are very good about this. (Shall I name names? ;-) But some are less good. Often a Discuss is just cleared. What isn't there is the email trail. Are you suggesting we should consider capturing all relevant email threads in the tracker? Summary is OK in the I-D tracker. I feel that the email thread would be good to have on a WG mailing list. I don't feel that the email folders on my laptop is the best place to archive these discussions. Having some experience of RT which does exactly that, I frankly doubt the value except for archaeologists. But I suppose it could be done, e.g. by opening an RT ticket for each thread and linking it into the I-D tracker. Too heavy? Too much process? Why not simply: - copy all Comments and Discusses to the WG mailing list - hold all discussions on the WG mailing list until resolution - update the Discuss or Comment in the tracker to show the resolution A ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
Why not simply: - copy all Comments and Discusses to the WG mailing list - hold all discussions on the WG mailing list until resolution Why would we do this for technical typos and other things that are essentially trivial? I'd expect an AD to enter WG discussion when raising fundamental issues, but not for straightforward points. This is what should, IMHO, be the PROTO shepherd's job to decide about, as well as consolidating issues when more than one AD (or other reviewer) finds the same thing. - update the Discuss or Comment in the tracker to show the resolution Actually it would be a matter of adding a new comment, most likely. But yes, once the PROTO shepherds have write access to the tracker, that will be something they can do. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
On 2007-01-15 17:11, Michael Thomas wrote: Michael Thomas, Cisco Systems On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Why not simply: - copy all Comments and Discusses to the WG mailing list - hold all discussions on the WG mailing list until resolution Why would we do this for technical typos and other things that are essentially trivial? I'd expect an AD to enter WG discussion when raising fundamental issues, but not for straightforward points. This seems sort of like a red herring to me: typo posts typically don't elicit much wg discussion in my experience. But please help me here: it seems that DISCUSS as currently instantiated is a conversation between the authors/wg chairs acting as liasons with the IESG. This sets up sort of a representative democracy kind of situation vs. a direct democracy that would be a conversation directly on the wg list. I can understand the IESG's desire for filtering, but that does place a lot of power in the hands of the wg's representatives. And power always begats abuse at some point... is this really what was intended? Abuse wasn't intended, obviously, but delegation was. Put simply, ~200 WG Chairs scale better than ~16 ADs. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
> Why would we do this for technical typos and other things that > are essentially trivial? I'd expect an AD to enter WG discussion > when raising fundamental issues, but not for straightforward > points. > > This is what should, IMHO, be the PROTO shepherd's job to decide > about, as well as consolidating issues when more than one AD > (or other reviewer) finds the same thing. What Brian is saying here is that there is a fair amount of noise in some of these cases. A fairly typical situation is that an AD raises a concern by placing a Discuss but then in the telechat we talk about whether under the circumstances that is really an issue. Quite often we end up clearing the Discuss. In any case, it could be premature to start a thread in the WG mailing list on "this protocol must do X" before we are sure that we actually want to demand that. A good shepherd manages this and takes the discussion to the WG when its ready. But in case they forget and/or to assist them, I wouldn't mind automatic posting of the IESG review results a a day or two after the telechat to the WG list. Jari ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 2007-01-08 11:08, Brian E Carpenter wrote: a) we believe that it is indeed the document shepherd's job to summarise issues and take them back to the WG, as stated in section 3.3 of draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding. This certainly seems reasonable. Unfortunately, it has two fundamental flaws. One, of course, is that it introduces the opportunity for the person making the summary to get things wrong. The more generic the AD's concern, the more likely this error, I believe. The wg can then pursue a resolution that turns out not to match what the AD meant. The second is that it permits the AD to offer relatively vague concerns, and even to change them over time. Since the AD has not been required to document their concerns fully, there is no history to indicate that something they offer later was not in their original Discuss. If an AD is going to impose the considerable costs of the extra effort by the wg, to resolve a Discuss, the AD should be required to fully document their concerns, to whatever level of detail is appropriate for that Discuss. Key, here, is to avoid generic statements of concern about reliability, security, efficiency, interoperability, or the like, and instead to make specific statements about the relevant flaws they see. That way, the working group can evaluate the concerns concretely and can have a good idea that they are pursuing a resolution that will be acceptable. There is also the obvious benefit of transparency, making the AD's concerns fully public, encouraging public review, comment, and assistance. In terms of ensuring that transparency, the comments need to be circulated to the working group, actively, rather than passively posting them on a web page and assuming that wg participants know when and where to look. (This can be accomplished easily, I believe, by sending a notice, with a link, to the wg when the AD comments are created or revised.) In the current model, any follow-on discussion really is between the Design Team and Chairs, with the AD. This introduces the possibility of significant late-stage changes that are agreed to by a smaller set than the whole working group. Even for items that are then returned to the wg, the wg cannot see the basis for the proposed changes; worse, having this all be late-stage, along with the added delay during the effort to resolve the Discuss, stands a good chance of resulting in less careful inspection by wg members interested in expediting closure. Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> Why not simply: >> - copy all Comments and Discusses to the WG mailing list >> - hold all discussions on the WG mailing list until resolution > > Why would we do this for technical typos and other things that > are essentially trivial? At the moment, it's not being done at all. Besides that, the idea that a document would be blocked because of a typo, or anything else trivial, is worth re-considering. In any event, why should an AD discuss be subject to less transparency than what is supposed to take place during normal working group activities, where folks post all sorts of comments, trivial and substantial.? > This is what should, IMHO, be the PROTO shepherd's job to decide > about, as well as consolidating issues when more than one AD > (or other reviewer) finds the same thing. WG formation is a whole other matter, although the more that is done on an open mailing list, the more likely the wg charter will be in synch with community desires and needs. Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 2007-01-15 17:11, Michael Thomas wrote: >>>...I'd expect an AD to enter WG discussion >>> when raising fundamental issues, but not for straightforward >>> points. >> >> ...This sets up sort of a >> representative democracy kind of situation vs. a direct >> democracy that would be a conversation directly on the wg list. >> I can understand the IESG's desire for filtering, but that does >> place a lot of power in the hands of the wg's representatives. >> And power always begats abuse at some point... is this really >> what was intended? > > Abuse wasn't intended, obviously, but delegation was. Michael's phrasing is quite apt. Delegation invites errors, whether in the form of abuse or just plain getting issues wrong. The premise of the IETF is that broad-based participation ensures adequate review. Having AD Discusses get resolved primarily by a subset of the wg ensures less review and less accountability. d/ ps. Meta-point: There is a consistent tendency to cite an exemplar from one side of an issue as justifying a choice by IETF management, when the counter-side is just a valid -- and often more of a concern. I thought IETF decision-making was about seeking balance? -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listin
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
--On Monday, 15 January, 2007 09:26 -0800 Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In the current model, any follow-on discussion really is > between the Design Team and Chairs, with the AD. This > introduces the possibility of significant late-stage changes > that are agreed to by a smaller set than the whole working > group. Even for items that are then returned to the wg, the > wg cannot see the basis for the proposed changes; worse, > having this all be late-stage, along with the added delay > during the effort to resolve the Discuss, stands a good chance > of resulting in less careful inspection by wg members > interested in expediting closure. Dave, FWIW, I am, and have always been, much more concerned with this particular problem of having post-Last Call issue resolution turn into a private negotiation among a small number of actors, with the WG essentially uninvolved and unaware, as the most serious late-stage threat to quality of our output. The rest of the issues about DISCUSS generation and tracking are, indeed, troublesome. But I believe that, in the vast majority of cases, they eventually get sorted out, even though they may waste time and otherwise not be efficient. I don't want to minimize the impact of that loss of time, but the private negotiations are, IMO, what put us at risk of producing documents that really do not represent IETF consensus (or, in the worst cases, even WG consensus). I also wonder, as we fine-tune notification to WGs about Last Call comments, what we should be doing about documents that are individually submitted to the IESG (or generated by the IESG) for publication (on the Standards Track or otherwise). The question is complicated by the observation that many WGs have multiple work items. Someone with particular expertise that overlaps one or two of them might want to track relevant Last Calls closely, but would be unlikely to subscribe to the WG list to do so. Perhaps we should make it a requirement that any document that is Last Called must be associated with a mailing list, perhaps one whose duration is limited to the Last Call period and any follow-ups until the document is either published or finally rejected. If there were a WG, then the WG list should be a proper subset of that list, anyone commenting during the Last Call should be added to it, and others could be added on request. That is just a quick idea and is probably not the right one, but I am concerned that we are in danger of optimizing for one case --the WG with either a single task item or a set of _very_ closely related ones-- and accidentally pessimizing the other cases. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:26:33 -0500 John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Perhaps we should make it a requirement that any document that > is Last Called must be associated with a mailing list, perhaps > one whose duration is limited to the Last Call period and any > follow-ups until the document is either published or finally > rejected. If there were a WG, then the WG list should be a > proper subset of that list, anyone commenting during the Last > Call should be added to it, and others could be added on request. > Actually, I think it's an excellent idea. Tracking Last Call comments was always difficult, since the email tended to end up in several different folders and wasn't archived elsewhere. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
Following up on that, I suggest a requirement that any DISCUSSes be posted to that mailing list, along with conversation/resolution of the DISCUSSes. I would very much like to see those last steps out in the open. Only drawback to separate mailing list is that it requires active involvement to get hooked into the last call discussion... - Ralph On 1/15/07 2:37 PM, "Steven M. Bellovin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:26:33 -0500 > John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Perhaps we should make it a requirement that any document that >> is Last Called must be associated with a mailing list, perhaps >> one whose duration is limited to the Last Call period and any >> follow-ups until the document is either published or finally >> rejected. If there were a WG, then the WG list should be a >> proper subset of that list, anyone commenting during the Last >> Call should be added to it, and others could be added on request. >> > Actually, I think it's an excellent idea. Tracking Last Call comments > was always difficult, since the email tended to end up in several > different folders and wasn't archived elsewhere. > > > --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb > > ___ > 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: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
Good issues are being raised. Certainly there needs to be openness about any substantive changes in drafts during the IESG review process. I'm not enamored of the idea of yet more mailing lists to subscribe to, however. Why can't we rely on the PROTO Shepherds to do the right thing with regard to posting DISCUSS issues to the WG mailing list and collecting WG feedback into the IESG review? After all, we rely on the WG Chairs to do the right thing in declaring consensus on WGLC prior to submitting the documents to the IESG with a request for publication. Regards, Dave Nelson ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
Nelson, David wrote: Good issues are being raised. Certainly there needs to be openness about any substantive changes in drafts during the IESG review process. I'm not enamored of the idea of yet more mailing lists to subscribe to, however. Why can't we rely on the PROTO Shepherds to do the right thing with regard to posting DISCUSS issues to the WG mailing list and collecting WG feedback into the IESG review? After all, we rely on the WG Chairs to do the right thing in declaring consensus on WGLC prior to submitting the documents to the IESG with a request for publication. WG formation is much like negotiating a contract. It should be done among the principals, not just their representatives. One of the very big benefits of this will be the creation of a very clear and public record of community interest and perspective. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
Ralph, I think I've already indicated why I (and others) believe that systematically posting raw DISCUSSes to lists would be the wrong move. Brian On 2007-01-15 20:43, Ralph Droms wrote: Following up on that, I suggest a requirement that any DISCUSSes be posted to that mailing list, along with conversation/resolution of the DISCUSSes. I would very much like to see those last steps out in the open. Only drawback to separate mailing list is that it requires active involvement to get hooked into the last call discussion... - Ralph On 1/15/07 2:37 PM, "Steven M. Bellovin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:26:33 -0500 John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Perhaps we should make it a requirement that any document that is Last Called must be associated with a mailing list, perhaps one whose duration is limited to the Last Call period and any follow-ups until the document is either published or finally rejected. If there were a WG, then the WG list should be a proper subset of that list, anyone commenting during the Last Call should be added to it, and others could be added on request. Actually, I think it's an excellent idea. Tracking Last Call comments was always difficult, since the email tended to end up in several different folders and wasn't archived elsewhere. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb ___ 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 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
Michael Thomas, Cisco Systems On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Why not simply: - copy all Comments and Discusses to the WG mailing list - hold all discussions on the WG mailing list until resolution Why would we do this for technical typos and other things that are essentially trivial? I'd expect an AD to enter WG discussion when raising fundamental issues, but not for straightforward points. This seems sort of like a red herring to me: typo posts typically don't elicit much wg discussion in my experience. But please help me here: it seems that DISCUSS as currently instantiated is a conversation between the authors/wg chairs acting as liasons with the IESG. This sets up sort of a representative democracy kind of situation vs. a direct democracy that would be a conversation directly on the wg list. I can understand the IESG's desire for filtering, but that does place a lot of power in the hands of the wg's representatives. And power always begats abuse at some point... is this really what was intended? Mike ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
What follows is not something I'm suggesting that we talk about anytime soon, but perhaps we should talk about it someday. Ralph, I think I've already indicated why I (and others) believe that systematically posting raw DISCUSSes to lists would be the wrong move. Brian On 2007-01-15 20:43, Ralph Droms wrote: Following up on that, I suggest a requirement that any DISCUSSes be posted to that mailing list, along with conversation/resolution of the DISCUSSes. I would very much like to see those last steps out in the open. My initial connection with the IETF was the result of people (inside and outside the IETF) trying to interpret one data point (packet loss) that could mean two things (loss due to network congestion or loss due to packet corruption) in TCP. For people who have not suffered through this discussion - you really can't do it, and the only safe assumption is "loss due to network congestion", so the best efforts of our best minds to use a binary indicator to mean three different things have failed. So, when I see a DISCUSS as the only indicator for at least two conditions - "we need to talk about this", and "not as long as I'm an AD" - I'm thinking we're causing problems for ourselves that we could fix. I would NEVER say that ADs ballot DISCUSS casually, but I would say that ADs do think that a DISCUSS ballot is about having a discussion. ADs ballot DISCUSS for a variety of reasons described in previous postings, which can include anything from "major NIT - looks like a cut-and-paste in the IANA section, with the same value given to two different usages" - all the way to "violates basic laws of physics". Since a document will not advance without the DISCUSS being resolved (there are various ways to do this), document editors are a lot more likely to freak out when they have a document that collects a DISCUSS ballot, and this is not good because people stop DISCUSSing and start negotiating - "my boss is waiting to see if I've wasted my on-clock time working on this document, what do I need to change for you to remove your DISCUSS?" being one example of the problem. Not all editors fold up like cheap furniture when they see a DISCUSS, but some do. That's not good. At the very minumum, DISCUSSes before a telechat are not as "interesting" as DISCUSSes that have persist more than a month after a telechat. The ADs really do work to remove DISCUSSes before telechats, and during telechats. At this stage, a DISCUSS is probably of interest to document editors and shepherds/WG chairs, and probably not of much interest to anyone else. After the ADs have taken their best shot, if the ballot positions still include one or more DISCUSSes, that's really interesting to the entire working group, and if other working groups or external SDOs have dependencies on the balloted documents, it's interesting to them, too. But all we know is that the document collected a DISCUSS, unless we start reading free-form text, so we can't easily tell how serious the problem was for the document. It is too late to change the way TCP works (believe me when I say this!), but it may not be too late to change the way DISCUSS works. And maybe the new General Area director could think about this, at some point. Thanks, Spencer p.s. I had a longer exchange about why DISCUSS was like TCP with Dave Crocker in private e-mail. If you don't have a sense of humor, please stop reading now... - We have two problems we want to know about, and how you respond depends on the problem you're having, so one indicator doesn't tell you everything you need to know. - TCP is designed to bend over backwards to be friendly to the infrastructure, at the expense of throughput. - the TCP design is specifically not intended to provide timeliness... - but with DISCUSS, active agents are people rather than cpus, so the small matter of human reactions messes things up. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 2007-01-15 17:11, Michael Thomas wrote: Michael Thomas, Cisco Systems On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Why not simply: - copy all Comments and Discusses to the WG mailing list - hold all discussions on the WG mailing list until resolution Why would we do this for technical typos and other things that are essentially trivial? I'd expect an AD to enter WG discussion when raising fundamental issues, but not for straightforward points. This seems sort of like a red herring to me: typo posts typically don't elicit much wg discussion in my experience. But please help me here: it seems that DISCUSS as currently instantiated is a conversation between the authors/wg chairs acting as liasons with the IESG. This sets up sort of a representative democracy kind of situation vs. a direct democracy that would be a conversation directly on the wg list. I can understand the IESG's desire for filtering, but that does place a lot of power in the hands of the wg's representatives. And power always begats abuse at some point... is this really what was intended? Abuse wasn't intended, obviously, but delegation was. Put simply, ~200 WG Chairs scale better than ~16 ADs. This rather assumes that the chairs and/or authors are always able to remember not only the material that is currently before the IESG, but also the history of how it got there. As an author, it's hard enough to keep track of the former and the latter is back in the realm of the super-human again. So when you get a DISCUSS which may well involve the intricacies of a very long and hard slog in the working group where many competing parties finally agreed to a consensus... how as the representatives do you know whether you are telegraphing the will of the working group? It's very hard, and at a late date it is *very* easy to make very basic mistakes again which not only negate the consensus of the working group, but are potentially just plain wrong. And that's assuming that there are no agendas, hidden or otherwise. So all in all, for an otherwise rather direct democratic kind of institution, I find the implied(?) representative nature of the backend linkages, non- transparency of process, and the juxtaposition of a fresh-but-disinterested ruling body next to the inured-but-interested working group sets the stage for a lot of potential process problems/abuses/surrender-and-ship-it kind of outcomes. That doesn't seem right. Mike ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
On Friday, January 12, 2007 04:04:08 PM -0500 Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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? I guess that depends on how much you want to depend on access controls vs people not doing things they're not supposed to. I believe the process admits the occasional shepherd who is not a chair or AD; if nothing else, I could imagine a chair who steps down but continues to shepherd his documents which are already partway through the process. Certainly not every chair will shepherd every document produced by his WG. So, a WG chair has certain rights with respect to documents in his WG. And a shepherd has certain rights with respect to documents he shepherds. The question is, is the difference great enough that we can't simply give all of those people the same powers, at least with respect to any given WG? Note that even if we just give all the shepherding powers to chairs, we still may need the concept of a shepherd who is not a chair, because I presume the tracker will inherit its idea of who is chair of what from other sources. It may be desirable, both here and in other cases, to be able to give someone some of the bits that go along with a role without actually publishing their name as a point of contact. Having that ability encourages people to delegate authorization instead of giving away their credentials. -- Jeff ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
We're rapidly approaching diminishing returns here... On 2007-01-16 21:17, Michael Thomas wrote: Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 2007-01-15 17:11, Michael Thomas wrote: Michael Thomas, Cisco Systems On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Why not simply: - copy all Comments and Discusses to the WG mailing list - hold all discussions on the WG mailing list until resolution Why would we do this for technical typos and other things that are essentially trivial? I'd expect an AD to enter WG discussion when raising fundamental issues, but not for straightforward points. This seems sort of like a red herring to me: typo posts typically don't elicit much wg discussion in my experience. But please help me here: it seems that DISCUSS as currently instantiated is a conversation between the authors/wg chairs acting as liasons with the IESG. This sets up sort of a representative democracy kind of situation vs. a direct democracy that would be a conversation directly on the wg list. I can understand the IESG's desire for filtering, but that does place a lot of power in the hands of the wg's representatives. And power always begats abuse at some point... is this really what was intended? Abuse wasn't intended, obviously, but delegation was. Put simply, ~200 WG Chairs scale better than ~16 ADs. This rather assumes that the chairs and/or authors are always able to remember not only the material that is currently before the IESG, but also the history of how it got there. As an author, it's hard enough to keep track of the former and the latter is back in the realm of the super-human again. That is even more true for the ADs, who see several hundred drafts a year on their screens. Authors and WG Chairs are *much* better placed to remember the history and context than an AD. ADs have to look back in the tracker and email archives each time they need context. So when you get a DISCUSS which may well involve the intricacies of a very long and hard slog in the working group where many competing parties finally agreed to a consensus... how as the representatives do you know whether you are telegraphing the will of the working group? It's very hard, and at a late date it is *very* easy to make very basic mistakes again which not only negate the consensus of the working group, but are potentially just plain wrong. And that's assuming that there are no agendas, hidden or otherwise. Yes. Which is exactly why substantive issues are to be taken back to the WG by the PROTO shepherd. Nobody is arguing otherwise, I hope. So all in all, for an otherwise rather direct democratic kind of institution, I find the implied(?) representative nature of the backend linkages, non- transparency of process, and the juxtaposition of a fresh-but-disinterested ruling body next to the inured-but-interested working group sets the stage for a lot of potential process problems/abuses/surrender-and-ship-it kind of outcomes. That doesn't seem right. I think you are deeply misunderstanding how PROTO shepherding is supposed to work. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
Steven M. Bellovin writes: On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:26:33 -0500 John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Perhaps we should make it a requirement that any document that is Last Called must be associated with a mailing list, perhaps one whose duration is limited to the Last Call period and any follow-ups until the document is either published or finally rejected. If there were a WG, then the WG list should be a proper subset of that list, anyone commenting during the Last Call should be added to it, and others could be added on request. Actually, I think it's an excellent idea. Tracking Last Call comments was always difficult, since the email tended to end up in several different folders and wasn't archived elsewhere. I wish something like this had been in place a year ago. People sent last call comments I needed to read to five different lists (IIRC), and I subscribed to only to three of those. But it could be less bothersome than having to set up a specific list. Just require that the draft specifies where comments should go and mention the address in the Last Call announcement. Arnt ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
Brian E Carpenter wrote: I think you are deeply misunderstanding how PROTO shepherding is supposed to work. That's a pretty basic disconnect. Perhaps you can summarize how it is supposed to work? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
On 2007-01-17 16:41, Dave Crocker wrote: Brian E Carpenter wrote: I think you are deeply misunderstanding how PROTO shepherding is supposed to work. That's a pretty basic disconnect. Perhaps you can summarize how it is supposed to work? The way it's described in draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding, which makes it plain to me that the shepherd is taking responsibility for ensuring that issues are resolved through open process. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2007-01-17 16:41, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>
>>> I think you are deeply misunderstanding how PROTO shepherding is
>>> supposed to work.
>>
>> That's a pretty basic disconnect.
>>
>> Perhaps you can summarize how it is supposed to work?
>
> The way it's described in draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding,
> which makes it plain to me that the shepherd is taking
> responsibility for ensuring that issues are resolved through
> open process.
I presume Brian wants to call our attention to:
]
] (3.e) The Document Shepherd then communicates the DISCUSS and
]COMMENT items to the document editors and the working group,
]alerting them of any changes to the document that have
]accumulated during IESG processing, such as "Notes to the RFC
]Editor." If any changes will be substantive, the Document
]Shepherd, in consultation with the Responsible Area Director,
]as during other stages, MUST seek working group consensus.
("then" is perhaps a bit out of context: see the named document.)
Note the steps 3.[abcd] which precede it.
I sense a perception that not all of this is happening. IMHO, we
need to avoid the "quick fix" of claiming an automated posting to the
mailing-list can substitute for these steps. Nonetheless, it might be
that an automated notification that a DISCUSS remains outstanding
some number of days after the telechat could help bring immediacy to
the process...
--
John Leslie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
Who is shepherd for an individual submission? Tom Petch - Original Message - From: "Jeffrey Hutzelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Sam Hartman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Henrik Levkowetz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Frank Ellermann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ; "Jeffrey Hutzelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 3:31 AM Subject: Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes > > > On Friday, January 12, 2007 04:04:08 PM -0500 Sam Hartman > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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? > > I guess that depends on how much you want to depend on access controls vs > people not doing things they're not supposed to. I believe the process > admits the occasional shepherd who is not a chair or AD; if nothing else, I > could imagine a chair who steps down but continues to shepherd his > documents which are already partway through the process. Certainly not > every chair will shepherd every document produced by his WG. > > So, a WG chair has certain rights with respect to documents in his WG. And > a shepherd has certain rights with respect to documents he shepherds. The > question is, is the difference great enough that we can't simply give all > of those people the same powers, at least with respect to any given WG? > > Note that even if we just give all the shepherding powers to chairs, we > still may need the concept of a shepherd who is not a chair, because I > presume the tracker will inherit its idea of who is chair of what from > other sources. It may be desirable, both here and in other cases, to be > able to give someone some of the bits that go along with a role without > actually publishing their name as a point of contact. Having that ability > encourages people to delegate authorization instead of giving away their > credentials. > > -- Jeff > > ___ > 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: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
On 2007-01-18 09:49, Tom.Petch wrote: Who is shepherd for an individual submission? The sponsoring AD. However, draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines (which will be updated shortly, so don't worry about its terminology issues) adds: Once the AD has agreed to sponsor a document, the authors need to provide a write-up similar to PROTO team write-ups from WGs. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Shepherds and individual submissions (Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes)
Brian, Tom, >> Who is shepherd for an individual submission? > > The sponsoring AD. However, draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines > (which will be updated shortly, so don't worry about > its terminology issues) adds: > >Once the AD has agreed to sponsor a document, the authors need to >provide a write-up similar to PROTO team write-ups from WGs. In general, the shepherding task falls on the AD if no shepherd can be found in the particular situation, such as when the WG chair for some reason cannot take this role. For individual submissions the same can be applied. The situation is a bit more complicated, though, because for WG submissions we most of the time have a neutral, non-author person easily available, i.e., the WG chair. In one recent case an individual submission fixed a bug in the work of a WG that ceased to exist years ago; nevertheless, we asked the ex-chair of that WG to act as a shepherd. If something like that cannot be arranged I'm uncertain what the best approach is. But in any case, the AD sponsoring a document needs some background information about the proposal, so that's why sponsoring guidelines suggest that the authors provide a write-up. Jari ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Identifying mailing list for discussion (Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes)
Steven M. Bellovin wrote: On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:26:33 -0500 John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Perhaps we should make it a requirement that any document that is Last Called must be associated with a mailing list, perhaps one whose duration is limited to the Last Call period and any follow-ups until the document is either published or finally rejected. If there were a WG, then the WG list should be a proper subset of that list, anyone commenting during the Last Call should be added to it, and others could be added on request. Actually, I think it's an excellent idea. Tracking Last Call comments was always difficult, since the email tended to end up in several different folders and wasn't archived elsewhere. I have argued for years that an I-D that doesn't say in its "status of this memo" section which mailing list it is to be discussed on is incomplete, but I don't seem to have achieved much success for that. I think all I-Ds should have this - both the first ones and the last ones. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Identifying mailing list for discussion (Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes)
On Jan 15, 2007, at 1:46 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote: I have argued for years that an I-D that doesn't say in its "status of this memo" section which mailing list it is to be discussed on is incomplete, but I don't seem to have achieved much success for that. 100% agree. On many of my drafts I put in the abstract what list comments should be sent to. I also strongly support having the information if the draft is intended to be a BCP, PS, Informational, etc. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Identifying mailing list for discussion (Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes)
Hi Folks, as a slight counter to that: I have had feedback in the past from WGs that it is unwise to include the WG's ML inside a draft intended (eventually) to be an RFC. The rationale was that the WG (and its ML) will disappear, whilst an RFC is forever. However, an unprocessed/not updated I-D disappears after 6 months, and that is a lot shorter than the half life of a WG, so your mileage may vary. Maybe ML info should be put inside a note to RFC-ED (i.e. remove on approval) within each draft? atb, Lawrence On 15 Jan 2007, at 23:35, Cullen Jennings wrote: On Jan 15, 2007, at 1:46 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote: I have argued for years that an I-D that doesn't say in its "status of this memo" section which mailing list it is to be discussed on is incomplete, but I don't seem to have achieved much success for that. 100% agree. On many of my drafts I put in the abstract what list comments should be sent to. I also strongly support having the information if the draft is intended to be a BCP, PS, Informational, etc. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Identifying mailing list for discussion (Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes)
While not harmful, I'm not sure this is necessary if the more-or-less standard naming convention for drafts is followed for non-WG drafts: draft-conroy-sipping-foo-bar indicates that the author Conroy believes the sipping WG to be the appropriate place for discussion, just like draft-sipping-foo-bar indicates the same, without the need to dig through a document. This is also a good idea since the WG tools page seems to use the same algorithm. Obviously, if there is no appropriate working group at all, this doesn't work, but maybe an area indication is sufficient: draft-conroy-rai-foo-bar If we eventually get new I-D submissions tools, it seems easy enough to enforce such a naming scheme. As long as mail contains the draft name in the subject line, it's not too much a burden for either author or WG to see those comments or to search for them. Henning On Jan 15, 2007, at 7:23 PM, lconroy wrote: Hi Folks, as a slight counter to that: I have had feedback in the past from WGs that it is unwise to include the WG's ML inside a draft intended (eventually) to be an RFC. The rationale was that the WG (and its ML) will disappear, whilst an RFC is forever. However, an unprocessed/not updated I-D disappears after 6 months, and that is a lot shorter than the half life of a WG, so your mileage may vary. Maybe ML info should be put inside a note to RFC-ED (i.e. remove on approval) within each draft? atb, Lawrence On 15 Jan 2007, at 23:35, Cullen Jennings wrote: On Jan 15, 2007, at 1:46 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote: I have argued for years that an I-D that doesn't say in its "status of this memo" section which mailing list it is to be discussed on is incomplete, but I don't seem to have achieved much success for that. 100% agree. On many of my drafts I put in the abstract what list comments should be sent to. I also strongly support having the information if the draft is intended to be a BCP, PS, Informational, etc. ___ 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: Identifying mailing list for discussion (Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes)
Henning Schulzrinne wrote: While not harmful, I'm not sure this is necessary if the more-or-less standard naming convention for drafts is followed for non-WG drafts: draft-conroy-sipping-foo-bar indicates that the author Conroy believes the sipping WG to be the appropriate place for discussion, just like 1. You are missing the amount of overhead involved in mapping the wg name to the information needed to subscribe to the working group. 2. You are assuming that the person reading the I-D is familiar with IETF naming conventions. 3. Not all I-Ds map to a working group. If the IETF is to be truly inclusive, it needs to limit the amount of expertise required for simple interactions by the rest of the community. Giving them the name of the mail list seems like a pretty small bit of overhead. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Identifying mailing list for discussion (Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes)
lconroy wrote: Hi Folks, as a slight counter to that: I have had feedback in the past from WGs that it is unwise to include the WG's ML inside a draft intended (eventually) to be an RFC. The rationale was that the WG (and its ML) will disappear, whilst an RFC is forever. However, an unprocessed/not updated I-D disappears after 6 months, and that is a lot shorter than the half life of a WG, so your mileage may vary. Maybe ML info should be put inside a note to RFC-ED (i.e. remove on approval) within each draft? That's why I like the "status of this memo" section - it is not going to survive the I-D to RFC process anyway. But I don't think xml2rfc makes this easy at the moment. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Identifying mailing list for discussion (Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes)
Henning Schulzrinne wrote: While not harmful, I'm not sure this is necessary if the more-or-less standard naming convention for drafts is followed for non-WG drafts: draft-conroy-sipping-foo-bar indicates that the author Conroy believes the sipping WG to be the appropriate place for discussion, just like draft-sipping-foo-bar indicates the same, without the need to dig through a document. This is also a good idea since the WG tools page seems to use the same algorithm. Obviously, if there is no appropriate working group at all, this doesn't work, but maybe an area indication is sufficient: draft-conroy-rai-foo-bar If we eventually get new I-D submissions tools, it seems easy enough to enforce such a naming scheme. As long as mail contains the draft name in the subject line, it's not too much a burden for either author or WG to see those comments or to search for them. For a lot of drafts, including those that come before the formation of a WG, or those that are associated with a non-WG mailing list, this is not appropriate. Being explicit is good. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Identifying mailing list for discussion (Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes)
Hi again folks, xml2rfc does process the Blah element already. I assume that this element will be removed/replaced during RFC-ED processing. Thus structured naming of drafts is not needed if the I-D author does his/her job. What is missing is a mapping from WG to the ML subscribe address. I would have thought that this could be a fairly fixed table that could be used by a reasonable hack to xml2rfc. If there is a workgroup element, the tied ML address could be auto-generated and placed on the next line. Note that this does not cover those cases where an I-D is associated with a ML but there is no current WG at that point (e.g. BoF-related drafts). Text showing the ML would have to be written explicitly into the I-D. However, any putative ML mapping hack to xml2rfc would cover most I-Ds. all the best, Lawrence On 16 Jan 2007, at 05:39, Harald Alvestrand wrote: lconroy wrote: Hi Folks, as a slight counter to that: I have had feedback in the past from WGs that it is unwise to include the WG's ML inside a draft intended (eventually) to be an RFC. The rationale was that the WG (and its ML) will disappear, whilst an RFC is forever. However, an unprocessed/not updated I-D disappears after 6 months, and that is a lot shorter than the half life of a WG, so your mileage may vary. Maybe ML info should be put inside a note to RFC-ED (i.e. remove on approval) within each draft? That's why I like the "status of this memo" section - it is not going to survive the I-D to RFC process anyway. But I don't think xml2rfc makes this easy at the moment. ___ 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: Identifying mailing list for discussion (Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes)
lconroy wrote: What is missing is a mapping from WG to the ML subscribe address. I would have thought that this could be a fairly fixed table that could be used by a reasonable hack to xml2rfc. If there is a workgroup element, the tied ML address could be auto-generated and placed on the next line. The table of mappings constitutes an on-going administrative challenge. Also as noted, not all I-Ds are tied to working groups. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Identifying mailing list for discussion (Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes)
The table of mappings constitutes an on-going administrative challenge. Also as noted, not all I-Ds are tied to working groups. But every draft should be able to fit into one of the IETF areas; all areas have, as far as I know, area-wide mailing lists. At least for TSV, the list has often been used as a catch-all for things that didn't quite fit elsewhere. Setting up a mailing list for each personal draft, with unclear 'note well' rules and archiving status, seems counterproductive. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking 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: Identifying mailing list for discussion (Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes)
Henning Schulzrinne wrote: The table of mappings constitutes an on-going administrative challenge. Also as noted, not all I-Ds are tied to working groups. But every draft should be able to fit into one of the IETF areas; ... Setting up a mailing list for each personal draft, with unclear 'note well' rules and archiving status, seems counterproductive. You have drawn two implications that I did not intend: 1. Choice of area often is not straightforward and an author new to the IETF often does not know what with which to claim "affiliation". This reduces to: there is currently no requirement for an I-D to declare affiliation and you appear expect to change that. 2. There is a difference between listing a mailing list venue, versus creating a new venue for each draft. I am suggesting the former, not the latter. I-Ds often can specify an existing list. I should also comment that pre-wg venues typically do not have clear rules and archiving status. While it is worth exploring development of guidance for proto-wg lists, I hope that is treated as something entirely different from whether an I-D states where discussion about it should occur. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Identifying mailing list for discussion(Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes)
Tom Petch - Original Message - From: "Henning Schulzrinne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "lconroy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 6:36 PM Subject: Re: Identifying mailing list for discussion(Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes) > > > > > > The table of mappings constitutes an on-going administrative > > challenge. Also as noted, not all I-Ds are tied to working groups. > > > > But every draft should be able to fit into one of the IETF areas; Not sure about the should but the really is that they do not. One close to my heart is URI which belongs in every area which has a protocol:-) The practicality is that it is hosted outside the IETF and a recent post there, relating to a very worthy piece of work, asked how to get this to be an RFC. Such questions show that we are not doing as well as we SHOULD. > all > areas have, as far as I know, area-wide mailing lists. At least for > TSV, the list has often been used as a catch-all for things that > didn't quite fit elsewhere. > > Setting up a mailing list for each personal draft, with unclear 'note > well' rules and archiving status, seems counterproductive. > > > > d/ > > > > -- > > > > Dave Crocker > > Brandenburg InternetWorking > > 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 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
