Brian E Carpenter wrote:
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.
Folks,
I hope no one doubts the basic truth of Brian's observ
On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 10:24:23 -0800
Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hope no one doubts the basic truth of Brian's observation. My own
> feeling, in fact, is that expecting all ADs to read even the final
> draft is an excessive burden. Either way, it leads to the basic
> question of h
I think it is helpful to distinguish at least three types of IETF
work products:
(1) fully new protocols, at the level of (say) MPLS or NSIS
(2) extensions of existing protocols, such as a new DHCP option or a
new RTP payload type (another huge fraction of our current activities)
(3) "bis"
Hi, Dave,
Currently, wgs produce 4 things: charter, email list archive, meeting
notes/summary, and output documents (specifications or whatever). None of
these permits intelligent assessment of working group progress, by someone
who is not significantly involved in a wg's on-going effort, wi
Steve Bellovin wrote:
>
Dave, a lot of this discussion has boiled down to a single topic, one
that's been talked about for a very long time: early, cross-area review.
Unfortunately, we've tried several schemes that haven't worked and we
don't really know how to do better. All have had some su
I fully agree with what Henning proposes. However, I am not sure it would be
practical. Namely, folks get their employers to pay for going to IETF to get
work done. Will that still happen if the meeting becomes, "What's going on in
the IETF?" I know when I was in startup mode, the holder of
I don't think these have to be either-or propositions. A mixture of
both, combined with pre-scheduled "breakout" sessions that
parallelize some of the lower-interest drafts, might offer value to
all participants. Naturally, details depend on the state and size of
the working group. SPEECHSC
Just in case I confused anyone else,
From: "Edward Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said privately,
At 4:29 +0800 1/9/07, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
the HECK was going on their working groups, each IETF week, due by Friday
When I first read this, I wondered "how does an IETF week compare with a
New
Folks,
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
Dave, a lot of this discussion has boiled down to a single topic, one
that's been talked about for a very long time: early, cross-area review.
Unfortunately, we've tried several schemes that haven't worked and we
don't really know how to do better.
Henning S
Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> However none cover the reason for Design Summaries (I'm changing the name,
> a bit.) The nature of a Summary has the wg take a step back from daily
> details and create a snapshot of the basic design and specification
> decisions, to date, but not as
>> The nature of a Summary has the wg take a step back from daily
details and create a snapshot of the basic design and specification
decisions, to date, but not as a list of individual decisions (or open
issues.)
This sounds as if it would be extremely helpful to folks sitting in
on WG m
11 matches
Mail list logo
