On 2007-01-05 20:55, John C Klensin wrote:
...
I have two questions...
(1) Do you have evidence of actual situations in which an AD
behaved in this way, kept concerns to him or herself, and then
raised them only, and for the first time, via a DISCUSS after
Last Call?
How about a case where an
--On Monday, January 08, 2007 11:21 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2007-01-05 20:55, John C Klensin wrote:
...
I have two questions...
(1) Do you have evidence of actual situations in which an AD
behaved in this way, kept concerns to him or herself, and then
raised
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2007-01-05 20:55, John C Klensin wrote:
...
I have two questions...
(1) Do you have evidence of actual situations in which an
AD behaved
in this way, kept concerns to him or herself, and then raised them
only, and for the
From: Robert Sayre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
A few interesting side cases on this. Some ADs (more than one
actually) recently suggested to a WG that something there
were doing
was likely to result in in a DISCUSS when it reached the
IESG. One of
the WG members appealed the IESG
Cullen Jennings schrieb:
On Jan 5, 2007, at 10:03 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
My gripe is when an outside AD takes an
interest in the work, goes to the f2f meetings, maybe reads the drafts
but then waits to IESG evaluation time to DISCUSS their issues. If
they know they have a problem(s), it
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Michael,
1. ADs physically don't have time to read intermediate drafts oustide
their own Area. So while they may suspect that a WG is heading in
a worrisome direction, they aren't in a position to do much about it.
2. ADs are collectively instructed by our rules to act
--On Friday, 05 January, 2007 10:03 -0800 Michael Thomas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My focus was actually a lot more narrow: I wasn't trying to
insist that AD's be super-human, and I honestly believe that
the job they do is extremely difficult. My gripe is when an
outside AD takes an interest
I strongly agree with John's reasoning here. But please keep reading...
From: John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have two questions...
(1) Do you have evidence of actual situations in which an AD
behaved in this way, kept concerns to him or herself, and then
raised them only, and for the
On Jan 5, 2007, at 10:03 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
My gripe is when an outside AD takes an
interest in the work, goes to the f2f meetings, maybe reads the drafts
but then waits to IESG evaluation time to DISCUSS their issues. If
they know they have a problem(s), it would be *far* better to air
On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 17:17:33 -0800
Cullen Jennings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 5, 2007, at 10:03 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
My gripe is when an outside AD takes an
interest in the work, goes to the f2f meetings, maybe reads the
drafts but then waits to IESG evaluation time to DISCUSS
Folks,
as implemented by a WG participant, will not change one whit, but where
the implementation by a non-participant changes from improbable to
possible, because it's clear what the words were intended to say.
Another example of wordsmithing that does not change the mechanics of
the
On 1/5/07, Cullen Jennings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 5, 2007, at 10:03 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
My gripe is when an outside AD takes an
interest in the work, goes to the f2f meetings, maybe reads the drafts
but then waits to IESG evaluation time to DISCUSS their issues. If
they know
Michael,
On 2006-12-31 03:00, Michael Thomas wrote:
John C Klensin wrote:
If an AD who was responsible for a WG came up with an issue about that
WG's work and raised it only during or after Last Call, I'd expect
either a really good explanation or a resignation. I certainly would
not
--On 30. desember 2006 18:00 -0800 Michael Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With regard to textual nit-picking and evaluation of worthiness of
prose, I tend to agree with what I think you are saying. However, if a
document is too badly written to permit interoperable implementations
to be
--On Monday, 01 January, 2007 15:30 +0100 Harald Alvestrand
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was using wordsmithing rather broadly. My probably
idiosyncratic meaning
of wordsmithing here was will this DISCUSS change the
mechanics of the protocol or not. If the answer is no, we're
really just
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, 01 January, 2007 15:30 +0100 Harald Alvestrand
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was using wordsmithing rather broadly. My probably
idiosyncratic meaning
of wordsmithing here was will this DISCUSS change the
mechanics of the protocol or not. If the answer is no,
--On Tuesday, 02 January, 2007 00:12 +0100 Harald Alvestrand
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem of working groups that emit documents as their
last gasp before dying from lack of energy is, in my opinion,
a much harder problem to tackle than that of browbeating the
IESG into DISCUSS
So what occurs to me is that a reasonable question to ask is whether
there are some legitimate success stories where a DISCUSS has actually
found big or reasonably big problems with a protocol that would have
wreaked havoc had they not been caught. I ask because it seems to me
that the main
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 10:09 AM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: John C Klensin; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: IESG Success Stories (was: Discuss criteria)
So what occurs to me is that a reasonable question to ask is
whether
Michael Thomas schrieb:
...
those in WG last call when the WG is far more responsive to dealing
with issues? These IESG Surprises really hurt the community by
leading to the general perception that the IESG is capricious in a
royally anointed kind of way.
Mike
And things get even worse
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 07:09:21 -0800
Michael Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The other thing that occurs to me -- and I know this has been brought
up in many different forms -- is that if an AD _was_ following the
working group to some degree, why is it legitimate for them to wait
for IESG
--On Saturday, December 30, 2006 7:09 AM -0800 Michael Thomas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
The other thing that occurs to me -- and I know this has been
brought
up in many different forms -- is that if an AD _was_ following
the
working group to some degree, why is it legitimate for them to
Hallam-Baker, == Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hallam-Baker, That is empirically not true. At this point we have
Hallam-Baker, precisely two cryptographic security protocols that
Hallam-Baker, can be regarded as a success: SSL and WEP. And the
Hallam-Baker,
: Saturday, December 30, 2006 10:28 AM Pacific Standard Time
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: Michael Thomas; John C Klensin; ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: IESG Success Stories
Hallam-Baker, == Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
John C Klensin wrote:
If an AD who was responsible for a WG came up with an issue about that
WG's work and raised it only during or after Last Call, I'd expect
either a really good explanation or a resignation. I certainly would
not expect it to happen often. But, IMO, we have an IESG and,
--On Saturday, December 30, 2006 6:00 PM -0800 Michael Thomas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was using wordsmithing rather broadly. My probably
idiosyncratic meaning
of wordsmithing here was will this DISCUSS change the
mechanics of the
protocol or not. If the answer is no, we're really just
From: John C Klensin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael,
If an AD who was responsible for a WG came up with an issue
about that WG's work and raised it only during or after Last
Call, I'd expect either a really good explanation or a
resignation.
Surely this is going to happen all
27 matches
Mail list logo
