Re: addressing Last Call comments [Re: Discuss criteria]
--On Sunday, 14 January, 2007 09:31 +0100 Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe we should be clearer on what the expectation for processing IETF LC comments is. Unless we do, it is not obvious how we could evaluate whether the procedure has been carried out properly or not. I think RFC 2026 is fairly clear and the issue is transparency - again, that is why the IESG now has a preference for IETF LC comments to go to the IETF list. That's a first step towards better tracking. Brian, Especially in conjunction with the piece of text that says retain the first part of the subject line, it is also a first step to more noise on the IETF list. The IESG may well have made the right decision here, but the recent explosion of the usual IPR debate under the topic of draft-legg-xed-asd -- drowning out any possible substantive discussion on a document for which some serious discussion is probably in order-- may indicate that some further tuning is in order. I note that proposals to send comments to the WG list and discuss them there don't work because the document is an individual submission. Convincing more people that the S/N ratio on the IETF list is such that it isn't worth following would not be a good consequence of this decision. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: addressing Last Call comments [Re: Discuss criteria]
On 2007-01-12 09:54, Pekka Savola wrote: Well, it seems rather common that IETF LC comments (especially if not copied to ietf@ietf.org list) are not responded. Firstly, this is the reason we recently made some minor changes in the text of the IETF Last Call messages, and why you will see a related IESG statement in the next few days. We'd rather that LC comments and follow-ups are on a public list in most cases. To reduce delay, it also seems common that IESG telechat is scheduled as soon as possible after IETF LC closes, Yes, since the community has asked us to reduce delays... and document is usually not taken out of the agenda if comments are received during the LC. That depends on the AD's judgement whether the comments are serious enough to definitely require a new I-D. Quite often the AD will prefer to get any DISCUSSes on the table at the same time, again to reduce delay. It's highly unlikely that a document would get approved in its first appearance on the agenda in the presence of non-editorial LC comments. Also sometimes the document gets approved without there being any record (e.g., on IESG ballots) that some comments had been made but there was no response. Well, again, it is entirely possible for the IESG to make a decision in voice discussion that the LC comments in question are editorial (in which case the draft can be approved subject to the AD requesting the necessary editorial fixes). And the IESG can also decide in voice discussion that a LC comment is simply in the rough part of rough consensus. I'd say this is fairly unusual, but I don't have numbers. I agree that in such a case, it would be at least courteous for the AD to tell the commenter and the PROTO shepherd this. Therefore it is not clear to me whether such comment was addressed (I'd call this 'processed') but without public record [e.g., editor or chair] in essence rejecting the comment (possibly in good faith) or not received at all (maybe also in good faith, e.g. if WG mailing list discards non-subscriber posts or the moderator is asleep). IETF LC comments are supposed to be sent to the IETF list, which has a public archive (or exceptionally to the iesg). Maybe we should be clearer on what the expectation for processing IETF LC comments is. Unless we do, it is not obvious how we could evaluate whether the procedure has been carried out properly or not. I think RFC 2026 is fairly clear and the issue is transparency - again, that is why the IESG now has a preference for IETF LC comments to go to the IETF list. That's a first step towards better tracking. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Last Call comment destination (Re: addressing Last Call comments [Re: Discuss criteria])
Just a minor followup here... From a Brian-o-gram: IETF LC comments are supposed to be sent to the IETF list, which has a public archive (or exceptionally to the iesg). Maybe we should be clearer on what the expectation for processing IETF LC comments is. Unless we do, it is not obvious how we could evaluate whether the procedure has been carried out properly or not. I think RFC 2026 is fairly clear and the issue is transparency - again, that is why the IESG now has a preference for IETF LC comments to go to the IETF list. That's a first step towards better tracking. Until a couple of months ago, I didn't think that IESG had a preference about where I sent Last Call comments (IESG list or IETF list), so I was sending comments to the IESG list, for two reasons: (1) I was confused, and (2) I preferred to send comments the list where they did not tend to set off long e-mail discussions with other Last Call commenters. In discussions with ADs during IETF 67, it became obvious to me that (1) the IESG actually DID have a preference for comments on the IETF list, although you couldn't tell it from the old-style Last Call text, and (2) this was the result of a desire for transparency, so likely a good thing. I haven't seen an announcement of the new-style Last Call text, only its use on specific recent last calls (I saw it on 12/22 Last Calls, so it's pretty recent). If you have also seen so many Last Call e-mails that you no longer actually read them, you might not have noticed the new text that Brian's referring to. Thanks, Spencer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: addressing Last Call comments [Re: Discuss criteria]
On Sun, Jan 14, 2007 at 09:31:29AM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 2007-01-12 09:54, Pekka Savola wrote: That depends on the AD's judgement whether the comments are serious enough to definitely require a new I-D. Quite often the AD will prefer to get any DISCUSSes on the table at the same time, again to reduce delay. It's highly unlikely that a document would get approved in its first appearance on the agenda in the presence of non-editorial LC comments. As an AD, I do expect other ADs to remove a document from the agenda if the Last Call comments are substantial and don't have a completely obvious resolution and/or really fall into the rough part of the consensus as determined by the working group chair and AD. Basically, that means I don't have a problem with documents on the agenda that have known minor editorial issues or issues that have a simple and straightforward solution that were brought up during the Last Call. Obviously, this involves a judgement call and I am happy to trust my colleagues to make such decision. As with all human decision making, we sometimes don't agree and have a discussion whether a document should really be on the agenda or not. In addition, there is the factor of time differences, vacation time and otherwise that sometimes will result in a situation that the document is only removed at quite a late stage. Personnally, I rather have us occasionally fix a problem because we are a bit too aggressive in getting a document on the agenda than being so careful that all documents end up incurring more delays during the IESG review phase. David Kessens --- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call comment destination (Re: addressing Last Call comments [Re: Discuss criteria])
I haven't seen an announcement of the new-style Last Call text, only its use on specific recent last calls (I saw it on 12/22 Last Calls, so it's pretty recent). If you have also seen so many Last Call e-mails that you no longer actually read them, you might not have noticed the new text that Brian's referring to. That's why there is an IESG Statement in the secretariat's queue, to be posted to the ietf-announce list. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
addressing Last Call comments [Re: Discuss criteria]
Jeff, you wrote a good note. I'll use this as an opportunity to expand on one topic a bit: On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: On Wednesday, January 03, 2007 10:49:33 PM + Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: C. PROCEDURAL BREAKAGE --- * IETF process related to document advancement was not carried out; e.g., there are unresolved and substantive Last Call comments which the document does not address... IMHO, this particular situation is more than just procedural breakage. If a document reaches this point with outstanding last call comments, then there is a more basic failure. Such a document should not have reached the point where a DISCUSS is required to keep it from progressing long enough for the comment to be addressed. Well, it seems rather common that IETF LC comments (especially if not copied to ietf@ietf.org list) are not responded. To reduce delay, it also seems common that IESG telechat is scheduled as soon as possible after IETF LC closes, and document is usually not taken out of the agenda if comments are received during the LC. Also sometimes the document gets approved without there being any record (e.g., on IESG ballots) that some comments had been made but there was no response. Therefore it is not clear to me whether such comment was addressed (I'd call this 'processed') but without public record [e.g., editor or chair] in essence rejecting the comment (possibly in good faith) or not received at all (maybe also in good faith, e.g. if WG mailing list discards non-subscriber posts or the moderator is asleep). Maybe we should be clearer on what the expectation for processing IETF LC comments is. Unless we do, it is not obvious how we could evaluate whether the procedure has been carried out properly or not. -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: addressing Last Call comments [Re: Discuss criteria]
It seems like most other SDOs use formalized issue trackers for the equivalent of last call (ballot) comments, making it easy to see what has been going on. Some WG do this, but each usually picking their own peculiar tracker. The problem with any substantial IETF LC or WGLC comments is that they are often multiple issues, from the trivial spelling errors to fundamental architectural issues. It is difficult to make sure that all have been addressed and that discussions don't become emails with meaningless subject lines - unintentionally making sure that nobody beyond the authors (if you're lucky) pays attention. Putting all comments, including DISCUSS, into a document-specific issue tracker would be most helpful. (It would be helpful even beyond publication of an RFC, as we have found for the SIP documents, as they can be used to gather issues that a future bis effort needs to address. From what I can tell, almost all of the non-trivial protocol documents these days generate an draft-ietf-rfcXYZbis, after all.) Henning On Jan 12, 2007, at 3:54 AM, Pekka Savola wrote: Jeff, you wrote a good note. I'll use this as an opportunity to expand on one topic a bit: On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: On Wednesday, January 03, 2007 10:49:33 PM + Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: C. PROCEDURAL BREAKAGE --- * IETF process related to document advancement was not carried out; e.g., there are unresolved and substantive Last Call comments which the document does not address... IMHO, this particular situation is more than just procedural breakage. If a document reaches this point with outstanding last call comments, then there is a more basic failure. Such a document should not have reached the point where a DISCUSS is required to keep it from progressing long enough for the comment to be addressed. Well, it seems rather common that IETF LC comments (especially if not copied to ietf@ietf.org list) are not responded. To reduce delay, it also seems common that IESG telechat is scheduled as soon as possible after IETF LC closes, and document is usually not taken out of the agenda if comments are received during the LC. Also sometimes the document gets approved without there being any record (e.g., on IESG ballots) that some comments had been made but there was no response. Therefore it is not clear to me whether such comment was addressed (I'd call this 'processed') but without public record [e.g., editor or chair] in essence rejecting the comment (possibly in good faith) or not received at all (maybe also in good faith, e.g. if WG mailing list discards non-subscriber posts or the moderator is asleep). Maybe we should be clearer on what the expectation for processing IETF LC comments is. Unless we do, it is not obvious how we could evaluate whether the procedure has been carried out properly or not. -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: addressing Last Call comments [Re: Discuss criteria]
Henning == Henning Schulzrinne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Henning Putting all comments, including DISCUSS, into a Henning document-specific issue tracker would be most Henning helpful. (It would be helpful even beyond publication of Henning an RFC, as we have found for the SIP documents, as they Henning can be used to gather issues that a future bis effort Agreed provided that it is simple for me to open a new issue from my email client, turn an email discussion into an issue, resolve and issue using email, etc. Also, I need to be able to update multiple issues in an email message, etc etc. Basically, I'm OK with an issue tracker provided that it does not increase the complexity for those doing cross-area review who want to open up a bunch of issues and manipulate them. Especially using a web based issue tracker is a non-starter from that standpoint. (You do probably want a web interface to any issue tracker; you just don't want to destroy the existing interface.) It is possible to meet these requirements in an issue tracker design. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
