that advance on the standards
track. We discussed this in the IESG and I drafted some suggested guidelines.
Feedback on these suggestions would be welcome. The intent is to publish an
IESG statement to complement the already existing general-purpose DISCUSS
criteria IESG statement
(http://www.ietf.org
--On Tuesday, August 30, 2011 14:51 -0700 Fred Baker
f...@cisco.com wrote:
What's also not fair game is to raise the bar - to expect
the document at DS to meet more stringent criteria than it
was required to meet at the time of PS approval.
Hmmm, the demonstrated interoperability
Keith, thank you for the feedback. Some responses inline:
1. Fix the broken IESG voting system before you try to establish more decision
criteria.
I do agree with your general thinking here. The way that you describe the
different positions is what I personally try to achieve in my IESG
Would having professional editors make a difference here?
On Aug 31, 2011, at 2:31 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, August 30, 2011 14:51 -0700 Fred Baker
f...@cisco.com wrote:
What's also not fair game is to raise the bar - to expect
the document at DS to meet more stringent
think the existing Discuss criteria already says very clearly that editorial
comments cannot be blocking DISCUSSes.
I see a lot of language feedback from IESG and directorate reviews, but its
rare to have them appear in the DISCUSSes. If they do, its inappropriate, you
should push back. And I'm
On Aug 31, 2011, at 2:31 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, August 30, 2011 14:51 -0700 Fred Baker
f...@cisco.com wrote:
What's also not fair game is to raise the bar - to expect
the document at DS to meet more stringent criteria than it
was required to meet at the time of PS
On Aug 31, 2011, at 2:36 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Keith, thank you for the feedback. Some responses inline:
1. Fix the broken IESG voting system before you try to establish more
decision criteria.
I do agree with your general thinking here. The way that you describe the
different
, which, IMO, is less bad but still
often a problem).
I think the existing Discuss criteria already says very clearly that
editorial comments cannot be blocking DISCUSSes.
So nobody has the job of making sure that the documents are well-written in
clear English?
Besides, we pay the RFC
--On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:34 +0300 Jari Arkko
jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
Eric, John,
Would having professional editors make a difference here?
I know it is controversial, but there is at least one other
...
I think the existing Discuss criteria already says very
clearly
--On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 08:02 -0400 Keith Moore
mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
I think the existing Discuss criteria already says very
clearly that editorial comments cannot be blocking DISCUSSes.
So nobody has the job of making sure that the documents are
well-written in clear
Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
The biggest problem with the current voting system (other than
misleading labels, which do cause real problems of their own) is the
presumption that the document should go forward no matter how few
IESG members read the document.
Keith makes
On Aug 31, 2011, at 10:42 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
We ought to, IMO, be permitting
publication of PS documents at the second level as long as there
are no _obvious_ ambiguities that cannot be figured out (the
same way) by people of good will acting in good faith and with
help from WG lists
. The
intent is to publish an IESG statement to complement the already existing
general-purpose DISCUSS criteria IESG statement
(http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html).
Here are the suggested guidelines for documents that advance to IS:
http://www.arkko.com/ietf/iesg/discuss
thanks Spencer for pointing this part out.
On Aug 31, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
IESG reviews should be considered as a review of last resort. Most
documents reviewed by the IESG are produced and reviewed in the
context of IETF working groups. In those cases, the IESG
--On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:08 -0400 Keith Moore
mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
On Aug 31, 2011, at 10:42 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
We ought to, IMO, be permitting
publication of PS documents at the second level as long as
there are no _obvious_ ambiguities that cannot be
On Aug 31, 2011, at 11:36 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
We ought to, IMO, be permitting
publication of PS documents at the second level as long as
there are no _obvious_ ambiguities that cannot be figured out
(the same way) by people of good will acting in good faith
and with help from WG lists
the S in IESG, AFAICT.
Thanks,
Spencer
- Original Message -
From: Keith Moore
To: Spencer Dawkins
Cc: Jari Arkko ; IETF Discussion
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: Discuss criteria for documents that advance on the standards
track
thanks Spencer
--On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:47 -0400 Keith Moore
mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
...
IMO, there are two possibilities here. At this point, sadly,
both involve a chicken-and-egg problem. Such is life.
(1) We proceed as if Proposed Standards are what 2026 (and the
earlier culture)
On Aug 31, 2011, at 12:19 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
we either ought to be identifying real problems and fixing them
or just staying with what we have until we have the knowledge
and will needed to make real changes.
That would certainly be my preference.
Keith
is to publish an
IESG statement to complement the already existing general-purpose DISCUSS
criteria IESG statement
(http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html).
Here are the suggested guidelines for documents that advance to IS:
http://www.arkko.com/ietf/iesg/discuss-criteria
would be welcome. The intent is to
publish an IESG statement to complement the already existing general-purpose
DISCUSS criteria IESG statement
(http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html).
Here are the suggested guidelines for documents that advance to IS:
http
On Aug 30, 2011, at 2:17 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
My understanding was always that DISCUSS was supposed to be an indication
that, at a minimum, the AD needs to understand the situation better before
casting a yea or nay vote. The resolution of a DISCUSS might end up being a
yes vote, a no
On Aug 30, 2011, at 5:51 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Aug 30, 2011, at 2:17 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
My understanding was always that DISCUSS was supposed to be an indication
that, at a minimum, the AD needs to understand the situation better before
casting a yea or nay vote. The resolution
time*, or explain why the update is insufficient. This happens,
probably
as often as authors failing to address an issue within a reasonable time.
Whichever
party is responsible for the delay should be subject to a timeout, surely.
That said, I disagree with Keith. The current DISCUSS criteria were
On 2011-08-31 08:18, Jari Arkko wrote:
...
Here are the suggested guidelines for documents that advance to IS:
http://www.arkko.com/ietf/iesg/discuss-criteria-advancing.txt
Comments appreciated.
To answer Jari's original request: +1 to these new guidelines.
Not worth nit-picking until we
All of this depends on the quality of the review and how it's followed
up on. Having to push back on insistent nonsense is a problem. A good
review that engenders a lot of discussion on substantial issues is very
worthwhile. We should foster those -- they are important. This is no
Thomas Narten wrote:
IMO, one of the biggest causes of problems (and most under-appreciated
process weakness) in the IETF (and any consensus based organization
for that matter) is poor handling of review comments.
Whereas all of my own experiences with groups having problematic handling of
. But
our mechanisms for allowing that kind of publication have years of
experience behind them. Not so much for community commentary
on IONs, IESG statements, or the like, which have tended to be perceived
as changeable only by replacing the sitting IESG.
my memory says that discuss
At 9:18 PM -0700 3/9/08, Russ Housley wrote:
I really disagree. Gen-ART Reviews begin this way:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
_http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html_).
Ted:
I think you completely misunderstand my point. A reviewer can make a
comment, and the authors or WG can say that they disagree. This is
important for an AD to see. The AD now needs to figure out whether
the reviewer is in the rough part of the rough consensus or whether
the reviewer
consider the DISCUSS Criteria in making that judgement.
Russ
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
for someone else's work.) AD judgement is needed here, and I
consider the DISCUSS Criteria in making that judgement.
Russ
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
It is my experience as well that Gen-ART or other organized reviews are
not given any more weight than other Last Call comments. However, I at
least weight different comments in different ways, based on whether I
agree with the issue, whether I believe the issue is a major problem or
a minor nit,
On 2008-03-11 03:42, Russ Housley wrote:
Ted:
I really disagree. Gen-ART Reviews begin this way:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
On Mar 9, 2008, at 10:56 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
I think you and Tim (and potentially other ADs in areas that have
review
teams) are missing an opportunity here. Over time, these review
teams
have been grown to the point where they do their reviews at Last Call
or before. That's a very
Dave == Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dave Sam Hartman wrote:
Making it a BCP will make the interpretation problem worse not better.
Dave How?
You can update an IESG statement mor easily than a BCP. As you find
areas where the text is unclear and you have to interpret
Lakshminath:
It's a fair thing to say that the ADs need to see a response. I
also agree that cross-area review is important and at times unearths
issues that may not have been raised in WG-level
reviews. Personally, I prefer cross-area reviews to take place
prior to the LC process and hope
Lakshimnath,
On 2008-03-08 21:12, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
...
Reviewers are not accountable for delays.
Well, at least for Gen-ART there is a deadline:
the end of Last Call for LC reviews, and a day or
so before the telechat for pre-IESG reviews.
Obviously, reviewers are human and sometimes
John,
On 2008-03-09 05:56, John C Klensin wrote:
I definitely do not want to see a discussion between authors and
reviewers --especially Area-selected reviewers-- during Last
Call. It too easily deteriorates into a satisfy him
situation, and those reviewers are not anything special (or,
At 6:38 AM -0700 3/9/08, Sam Hartman wrote:
Dave == Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dave Sam Hartman wrote:
Making it a BCP will make the interpretation problem worse not better.
Dave How?
You can update an IESG statement mor easily than a BCP. As you find
areas where
At 1:42 PM -0800 3/8/08, Russ Housley wrote:
I think you completely misunderstand my point. A reviewer can make a
comment, and the authors or WG can say that they disagree. This is
important for an AD to see. The AD now needs to figure out whether
the reviewer is in the rough part of the rough
On 3/9/2008 1:30 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Lakshimnath,
On 2008-03-08 21:12, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
...
Reviewers are not accountable for delays.
Well, at least for Gen-ART there is a deadline:
the end of Last Call for LC reviews, and a day or
so before the telechat for pre-IESG
Spencer,
On Mar 7, 2008, at 8:56 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
(stuff deleted)
So, for example, it probably IS worth finding out if the rest of
the ADs who sponsor reviewing bodies
As an AD who sponsors a reviewing body (the Security Directorate), I
guess it is my
turn to step into the
On 3/7/2008 11:18 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
Lakshminath Dondeti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have reviewed documents as a Gen-ART reviewer (during Brian's tenure I
think), sec-dir reviewer and also provided IETF LC comments on some
documents. As a reviewer, I am not sure whether I was
On 3/7/2008 10:56 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
Lakshminath:
So, I'll tell everyone how I deal with Gen-ART Reviews. Other
General ADs may have done things slightly different.
When I use a Gen-ART Review as the basis of a DISCUSS, I put it in
one of two categories.
(1) The Gen-ART Review
away. Put differently, there
is a tendency for satisfy him (or her) and make the DISCUSS go
away to become a more important objecting in practice than get
things right.
In at least some ways, the DISCUSS criteria were an attempt to
constrain that problem, at as as far as the ADs were concerned
standing is the best use of any time we're willing to spend on
process discussions.
... if people would feel better if the IESG reissued the discuss criteria
document as an IESG statement, go for it.
... I understand what Ted is saying about this needs to be a BCP. If we
were, in any way, capable
On Mar 6, 2008, at 9:43 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
It was later that I suggested someone else
hold the discuss, because I thought Cullen would want to recuse,
since he is a patent author on a patent his company has filed
related to
this document.
This is a reasonable action given the conflict
Lakshminath:
So, I'll tell everyone how I deal with Gen-ART Reviews. Other
General ADs may have done things slightly different.
When I use a Gen-ART Review as the basis of a DISCUSS, I put it in
one of two categories.
(1) The Gen-ART Review was ignored. Like any other Last Call
comment, it
Lakshminath Dondeti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have reviewed documents as a Gen-ART reviewer (during Brian's tenure I
think), sec-dir reviewer and also provided IETF LC comments on some
documents. As a reviewer, I am not sure whether I was expecting answers
all those times. I am pretty
@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IONs discuss criteria
Lakshminath Dondeti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have reviewed documents as a Gen-ART reviewer (during
Brian's tenure I
think), sec-dir reviewer and also provided IETF LC comments on some
documents. As a reviewer, I am
The call for comments on IONs seems to have ended without
clarifying the effect of the end of the experiment on the standing
of current IONs. For most of them, I honestly don't think the
standing is much of an issue. But for the discuss criteria ION,
I believe it is a serious issue
the discuss criteria
*should* be promoted to BCP (which effectively binds future
IESGs as well as the current IESG). That is worth some
discussion. My experience on both sides of the fence is that
having the criteria spelled out has been extremely valuable
to authors, WGs, reviewers and the IESG itself. I'm
.
However, the deeper question is whether the discuss criteria
*should* be promoted to BCP (which effectively binds future
IESGs as well as the current IESG). That is worth some
discussion. My experience on both sides of the fence is that
having the criteria spelled out has been extremely valuable
Ted,
Speaking for myself here but I suspect that other ADs are in the same
boat ... I'm keen to make sure my Discusses are within the parameters
of the discuss criteria ION regardless of the official status of this
document. Agree we need to sort out what we the end result is of
several
the
standing is much of an issue. But for the discuss criteria ION,
I believe it is a serious issue. At this point, it is difficult to know
whether the discuss criteria document is in force or not, and the
extent to which the issuing body is bound by it.
I think this is a very bad thing.
I call on Russ
Cullen == Cullen Jennings [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Cullen Ted,
Cullen Speaking for myself here but I suspect that other ADs are in the
same
Cullen boat ... I'm keen to make sure my Discusses are within the
parameters
Cullen of the discuss criteria ION regardless
before the experiment started.
The status this document had prior to being approved
as an ION was Internet draft, which means it had
no formal status at all and was followed by the IESG
as a matter of lore.
However, the deeper question is whether the discuss criteria
*should* be promoted
--On Thursday, 06 March, 2008 12:01 -0800 Ted Hardie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I call on Russ to restore this document to its original status
as an Internet Draft and to process it as a BCP. IESG
DISCUSSes are a very serious part of our process at this
point. Having a community agreed
At 12:52 PM -0800 3/6/08, Russ Housley wrote:
Once this discussion is over, the future of IONs should be clear, and
I will share with the whole IETF community the outcome of the experiment.
Russ,
Whatever the fate of IONs in general, it is clear to me that
this document does not belong
Cullen,
Thank you for your statement that you are keen to make sure your
DISCUSSes are within the parameters of the discuss criteria ION. I
appreciate it. Perhaps I am naive or my understanding of the English
language is poor (they are both probably true), but could you explain
how one
to know
Ted why.
Ted Ted Hardie
If someone believes that a discuss is inappropriate, I recommend that
they start both by contacting the discussing AD *and* the shepherding
AD.
I know that I would treat a request to rethink whether a discuss I
held was consistent with the discuss criteria
At Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:35:04 -0800,
Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
Cullen,
Thank you for your statement that you are keen to make sure your
DISCUSSes are within the parameters of the discuss criteria ION. I
appreciate it. Perhaps I am naive or my understanding of the English
language
Lakshminath == Lakshminath Dondeti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lakshminath Cullen,
Lakshminath Thank you for your statement that you are keen to make sure
your
Lakshminath DISCUSSes are within the parameters of the discuss criteria
ION. I
Lakshminath appreciate it. Perhaps I am
for your statement that
you are keen to make sure your Lakshminath DISCUSSes are within the
parameters of the discuss criteria ION. I Lakshminath appreciate
it. Perhaps I am naive or my understanding of the English
Lakshminath language is poor (they are both probably true), but
could you
Part of the reason I replied so quickly on this thread is that I
think I currently have two discuss that do not meet the discuss
criteria (this being one of them the other being on Lost). Totally
fair to pick on me here. Both were entered as, excuse the pun, fairly
fluffy comments
replied so quickly on this thread is that I think
I currently have two discuss that do not meet the discuss criteria (this
being one of them the other being on Lost). Totally fair to pick on me
here. Both were entered as, excuse the pun, fairly fluffy comments
because I believe fully stating
Lakshminath == Lakshminath Dondeti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lakshminath Sam,
Lakshminath I fail to understand why this has to be a guessing game. I
also don't
Lakshminath understand the argument about resolving DISCUSSes sequentially
(in
Lakshminath reference to your point
On 3/6/08 at 4:24 PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
Hmm. If people believe that this document should be processed as a
BCP, thereby presumably constraining long-term IESG behavior and
adding to our procedural core, should it be added to the PUFI agenda
for preliminary discussion?
The PUFI BOF
At 2:23 PM -0800 3/6/08, Cullen Jennings wrote:
Part of the reason I replied so quickly on this thread is that I
think I currently have two discuss that do not meet the discuss
criteria (this being one of them the other being on Lost). Totally
fair to pick on me here. Both were entered
Sam,
There is no need to prolong this particular side of the discussion now
that Cullen clarified his position. But, I have to say that this thread
is but one example that we often don't clearly understand each other's
positions.
You interpret Cullen's DISCUSS as : I think it's reasonable
no force at the moment at all,
Ted, I'd like to disagree with this point. I believe that you could
appeal a discuss because it does not meet the discuss criteria. I
believe you could ask the iesg as a body to evaluate whether a discuss fit the
criteria.
If you did appeal, I believe you could
At 1:43 PM -0800 3/6/08, Sam Hartman wrote:
I know that I would treat a request to rethink whether a discuss I
held was consistent with the discuss criteria document from another
IESG member very seriously. I would treat such a request from an
author seriously, although not as seriously as from
John C Klensin wrote:
Hmm. If people believe that this document should be processed
as a BCP, thereby presumably constraining long-term IESG
behavior and adding to our procedural core, should it be added
to the PUFI agenda for preliminary discussion?
Yes.
A series of postings by sitting
Ted == Ted Hardie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ted At 1:43 PM -0800 3/6/08, Sam Hartman wrote:
I know that I would treat a request to rethink whether a discuss I
held was consistent with the discuss criteria document from another
IESG member very seriously. I would treat
Sam Hartman wrote:
Making it a BCP will make the interpretation problem worse not better.
How?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Dave,
On 2008-03-07 12:34, Dave Crocker wrote:
Sam Hartman wrote:
Making it a BCP will make the interpretation problem worse not better.
How?
To some extent that depends on how carefully the putative BCP
is crafted, with should and when to disregard should being
very precise. What I
consider the DISCUSS Criteria in making that judgement.
Russ
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
the unresolved review comments
into DISCUSS and COMMENT. AD judgement is needed, and I consider the
DISCUSS Criteria in making that judgement.
Russ
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I believe Sam's discuss cover the issues I was concerned about and I
have removed my discuss.
On Mar 6, 2008, at 2:57 PM, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
Sam,
There is no need to prolong this particular side of the discussion
now that Cullen clarified his position. But, I have to say that
Brian,
A small clarification below on the reference to the interpretation
problems related to 3777:
On 3/6/2008 4:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Dave,
On 2008-03-07 12:34, Dave Crocker wrote:
Sam Hartman wrote:
Making it a BCP will make the interpretation problem worse not better.
How?
Thanks Cullen.
regards,
Lakshminath
On 3/6/2008 5:05 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
I believe Sam's discuss cover the issues I was concerned about and I
have removed my discuss.
On Mar 6, 2008, at 2:57 PM, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
Sam,
There is no need to prolong this particular
-0800 3/6/08, Cullen Jennings wrote:
Part of the reason I replied so quickly on this thread is that I
think I currently have two discuss that do not meet the discuss
criteria (this being one of them the other being on Lost). Totally
fair to pick on me here. Both were entered as, excuse the pun
On 2008-03-07 14:06, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
Brian,
A small clarification below on the reference to the interpretation
problems related to 3777:
On 3/6/2008 4:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Dave,
On 2008-03-07 12:34, Dave Crocker wrote:
Sam Hartman wrote:
Making it a BCP will make
On Mar 6, 2008, at Mar 6, 2008,8:55 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2008-03-07 14:06, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
Brian,
A small clarification below on the reference to the interpretation
problems related to 3777:
On 3/6/2008 4:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Dave,
On 2008-03-07 12:34,
At 5:48 PM -0800 3/6/08, Cullen Jennings wrote:
I put that in before the IESG call where this document was on the
Agenda - This was put in as the document editor, Ted in this case, had
asked me not to put in a discuss until we tried to figure out a way to
resolve this that did it without opening
On Mar 6, 2008, at 7:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Sam Hartman wrote:
Making it a BCP will make the interpretation problem worse not
better.
How?
To some extent that depends on how carefully the putative BCP
is crafted, with should and when to disregard should being
very precise.
On 2008-03-07 16:10, Andrew Newton wrote:
On Mar 6, 2008, at 7:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Sam Hartman wrote:
Making it a BCP will make the interpretation problem worse not better.
How?
To some extent that depends on how carefully the putative BCP
is crafted, with should and when
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Dave,
On 2008-03-07 12:34, Dave Crocker wrote:
Sam Hartman wrote:
Making it a BCP will make the interpretation problem worse not better.
How?
To some extent that depends on how carefully the putative BCP
is crafted, with should and when to disregard should
Message -
From: IETF Chair [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: IETF Announcement list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 9:53 AM
Subject: ION Announcement: DISCUSS Criteria in IESG Review
A new IETF Operational Note (ION) is now available in online:
Name: ion-discuss-criteria
Title: DISCUSS
, 2007 9:53 AM
Subject: ION Announcement: DISCUSS Criteria in IESG Review
A new IETF Operational Note (ION) is now available in online:
Name: ion-discuss-criteria
Title: DISCUSS Criteria in IESG Review
URL: http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/ion-discuss-criteria.html
This ION
Hi, Russ,
Spencer:
This document is intended to set expectations. It does not make any
normative changes to RFC 2026.
Russ
Got that part.
I'm actually asking whether the ION makes any changes in the expectations
set in the 02 version of the now-dead IESG draft, which the IESG has been
understanding also?
Thanks,
Spencer
- Original Message - From: IETF Chair [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: IETF Announcement list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 9:53 AM
Subject: ION Announcement: DISCUSS Criteria in IESG Review
A new IETF Operational Note (ION) is now available in online
Russ Housley wrote:
Spencer:
This document is intended to set expectations. It does not make any
normative changes to RFC 2026.
Russ,
Although it was quite some time ago, and my memory is certain to be
inaccurate, I thought there was extensive public discussion about the criteria
list
Sorry. No it does not make any changes. Our practices remain the same.
Russ
At 02:34 PM 8/27/2007, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Hi, Russ,
Spencer:
This document is intended to set expectations. It does not make
any normative changes to RFC 2026.
Russ
Got that part.
I'm actually asking
A new IETF Operational Note (ION) is now available in online:
Name: ion-discuss-criteria
Title: DISCUSS Criteria in IESG Review
URL: http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/ion-discuss-criteria.html
This ION was approved by the IESG on July 5, 2007.
This document describes the role
So, I am curious. Have people looked at
http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/discuss-criteria.html (which I BELIEVE is
the current form of the DISCUSS Criteria document - this really needs to be
an ION, but that's another story)?
Does this look like the kind of guidance Randall is talking about
--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.
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
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
1 - 100 of 181 matches
Mail list logo
