The claim (or one of the claims) is that some ADs may place Discusses that are
intended to raise a discussion with the authors/WG that could equally have been
raised with a Comment or through direct email. This, it is claimed, may
unnecessarily delay the document from completing the publication pro
On May 15, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> I suggest that the former is a bad result. Not that the authors/WG will ignore
> the discussion, but if they disagree on something the AD considers very
> important, the authors/WG have no incentive to participate in the discussion.
> Of
> cours
On May 15, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> The claim (or one of the claims) is that some ADs may place Discusses that
> are
> intended to raise a discussion with the authors/WG that could equally have
> been
> raised with a Comment or through direct email. This, it is claimed, may
> unnec
On 2013-05-16 14:38, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
Discussions should have a time limit (can be one week),
I totally disagree, DISCUSSES are our friends, they need to be
discussed until we have rough consensus; it seems to be a
manifestly bad idea to draw a deadline after seven days, if
someone c
Please distinguish between (1) making the system efficient and (2) making
individual documents go through it quickly. If you put time limits on
parts of the process, you're not allowing them to function correctly.
Putting arbitrary time limits on will hurry things up but it will not
produce highe
Hi Loa,
I agree with you discussions are our friend. I was focusing on
processing time, not document quality. No dought if you stay longer
time you will get better quality, but what about progress. So I mean
call for discussions is for a time limit, as if no discussion happends
then the call matur
On 5/16/13, Scott Brim wrote:
> Please distinguish between (1) making the system efficient and (2) making
> individual documents go through it quickly. If you put time limits on
> parts of the process, you're not allowing them to function correctly.
> Putting arbitrary time limits on will hurry
>> Putting arbitrary time limits on will hurry things up but it will not
>> produce higher quality results.
>
> Ok, so do you agree, that if who holds the work, at least should tell
> us HOW long he is holding or what is the time PLAN. Do you think
> working without plan is efficient and gives good
On 5/15/2013 1:30 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Suppose the AD raised her concern by writing a Comment or sending an email and
balloting "No Objection." That would mean that the I-D would be approved for
publication.
At this point either:
- the discussion goes on, but the document becomes an RFC anyw
nd people who didn't
notice the I-D sneaking through).
Still thinking,
Adrian
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Crocker [mailto:d...@dcrocker.net]
> Sent: 16 May 2013 17:23
> To: adr...@olddog.co.uk
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Is this an elephant? [Was: call
On 5/16/2013 9:40 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
That's a good question Dave.
The community might like to comment.
On the whole, I am told that if an AD weighs in with her comments during working
group last call, her fearsome personality may overwhelm some of the WG
participants and she may dominate
On May 16, 2013, at 1:01 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> http://dcrocker.net/#gender
That's what I do. It gets a bit awkward with verb agreement and constructs
like "themself," which elicits the dreaded red snake underline of doom. But I
find it more comfortable than just subverting the sexist p
Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> And of course, the reality is that we allow bad specs out the door all
> the time; we just allow fewer of them than many/most other standards
> bodies...
But different to (at least some) other standards bodies, we lack an
official means to publish defect reports (aka err
On Thursday, May 16, 2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
> By the time the IESG schedules the vote, ADs need to already have educated
> themselves about the document.
>
Oh, so you're suggesting adding another phase to the process: IESG
education. OK.
>
> So here's a simple proposal that pays attention t
On 5/16/13 10:01 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 5/16/2013 9:40 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
That's a good question Dave.
The community might like to comment.
On the whole, I am told that if an AD weighs in with her comments
during working
group last call, her fearsome personality may overwhelm some
On May 16, 2013, at 9:08 PM, Scott Brim
mailto:scott.b...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
By the time the IESG schedules the vote, ADs need to already have educated
themselves about the document.
Oh, so you're suggesting adding another phase to the process: IE
I think Dave's idea is worth looking at, but have one comment:
On 05/16/2013 09:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
> There is a problem, though, that this will increase the load on ADs.
There is that. But don't forget that ADs mostly read everything
in IESG review and often comment. Even leaving aside DISCU
On May 16, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> On the whole, I am told that if an AD weighs in with her comments during
> working
> group last call, her fearsome personality may overwhelm some of the WG
> participants and she may dominate the WG consensus.
There may be places where that h
Dave,
On 17/05/2013 04:23, Dave Crocker wrote:
...
> The problem here is that basic reviewing is being done by the ADs too
> late in the process.
You are making a lot of assumptions in that sentence. At least these:
1. "Basic" reviewing means
2. At some stage before approval, ADs should
On May 16, 2013, at 5:00 PM 5/16/13, "Fred Baker (fred)" wrote:
>
> On May 16, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>
>> On the whole, I am told that if an AD weighs in with her comments during
>> working
>> group last call, her fearsome personality may overwhelm some of the WG
>> particip
On 05/16/2013 04:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
The time for asking whether the group has considered making this field
fixed length instead of variable, or whether RFC 2119 language is used
in an appropriate way, or whether the protocol is extensible enough is
at IETF last call.
Actually the time fo
Dave - I hope you'll indulge my selective quoting as I have a couple of
specific points to address. My apologies if I end up quoting you out of
context...
On May 16, 2013, at 12:23 PM 5/16/13, Dave Crocker wrote:
> [...]
>
> So here's a simple proposal that pays attention to AD workload and
On May 16, 2013, at 5:58 PM 5/16/13, Keith Moore
wrote:
> On 05/16/2013 04:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>> The time for asking whether the group has considered making this field fixed
>> length instead of variable, or whether RFC 2119 language is used in an
>> appropriate way, or whether the protoc
On 5/16/13 2:58 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
On 05/16/2013 04:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
The time for asking whether the group has considered making this
field fixed length instead of variable, or whether RFC 2119 language
is used in an appropriate way, or whether the protocol is extensible
enough is at
On 5/16/13 4:07 PM, Ralph Droms wrote:
>
> On May 16, 2013, at 5:58 PM 5/16/13, Keith Moore
> wrote:
>
>> On 05/16/2013 04:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>>> The time for asking whether the group has considered making this field
>>> fixed length instead of variable, or whether RFC 2119 language is use
On May 16, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
> There is a problem, though, that this will increase the load on ADs. Other
> concerns raised during IETF LC may lead to revised I-Ds, which the ADs will
> need to re-read (or at least look at the diff). I don't know how significant
> this extra w
On 05/16/2013 06:09 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
Fix that problem, and most of the conflicts between IESG and WGs that
surround DISCUSS votes will go away.
Maybe but I wouldn't take that as an article of faith. You're going to
get pressure for more changes when fresh eyes review something.
Yeah,
On May 16, 2013, at 11:55 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> I think Dave's idea is worth looking at, but have one comment:
>
> On 05/16/2013 09:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>> There is a problem, though, that this will increase the load on ADs.
>
> There is that. But don't forget that ADs mostly read
On May 17, 2013, at 12:58 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
> On 05/16/2013 04:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>> The time for asking whether the group has considered making this field fixed
>> length instead of variable, or whether RFC 2119 language is used in an
>> appropriate way, or whether the protocol is ex
On May 17, 2013, at 1:38 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>
> On May 16, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>
>> There is a problem, though, that this will increase the load on ADs. Other
>> concerns raised during IETF LC may lead to revised I-Ds, which the ADs will
>> need to re-read (or at lea
On 05/17/2013 10:18 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>
> On May 16, 2013, at 11:55 PM, Stephen Farrell
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I think Dave's idea is worth looking at, but have one comment:
>>
>> On 05/16/2013 09:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>>> There is a problem, though, that this will increase the load on ADs.
>>
>
Dave, Ralph,
>> Jari has expressed the goal of having AD concerns be raised more publicly.
>> Moving AD review and comment to the IETF Last Call venue nicely accomplishes
>> this, too.
>
> I just posted elsewhere a suggestion to move this review even earlier, to WG
> last call. Accomplishes
On 05/17/2013 05:31 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On May 17, 2013, at 12:58 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
On 05/16/2013 04:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
The time for asking whether the group has considered making this field fixed
length instead of variable, or whether RFC 2119 language is used in an
appropriate wa
On 05/17/2013 05:32 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On May 17, 2013, at 1:38 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
On May 16, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
There is a problem, though, that this will increase the load on ADs. Other
concerns raised during IETF LC may lead to revised I-Ds, which the ADs will
On 5/17/2013 7:01 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
But WGs should be able to periodically summarize what they're doing -
what problem they're trying to solve, what approach they're taking, what
technologies they're using, what major decisions they've made, what the
current sticking points seem to be, what
Dave,
On 5/17/13 11:37 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 5/17/2013 7:01 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
But WGs should be able to periodically summarize what they're doing -
what problem they're trying to solve, what approach they're taking, what
technologies they're using, what major decisions they've made, w
On May 17, 2013, at 6:37 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 5/17/2013 7:01 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
>> But WGs should be able to periodically summarize what they're doing -
>> what problem they're trying to solve, what approach they're taking, what
>> technologies they're using, what major decisions the
On 05/17/2013 04:36 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On May 17, 2013, at 6:37 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 5/17/2013 7:01 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
But WGs should be able to periodically summarize what they're doing -
what problem they're trying to solve, what approach they're taking, what
technologies they're
On 05/17/2013 10:21 PM, Andy Bierman wrote:
I notice that nowhere on this list is any mention of the charter
milestones
or dates. Is the Foo Proto draft due in 14 months or is it 14 months
behind
schedule? If the latter, why isn't the Foo WG meeting at the IETF?
I don't think milestones
On 05/17/2013 10:37 PM, Andy Bierman wrote:
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Keith Moore
mailto:mo...@network-heretics.com>> wrote:
I don't think milestones will be useful unless and until:
(a) they're defined in terms of not only concrete but also
meaningful goals (e.g. "comple
The problem is that WG participants SHOULD follow/update their
milestones and take responsibility to progress work to thoes goals
direction. The Chair SHOULD follow the WG requests, or the Chair
SHOULD encourage discussing the milestones. I already requested before
that all WGs SHOULD discuss their
> Instead of a WG progress report, what I had in mind was a separate report for
> each work item. The report should briefly describe
I agree with you totally, that work-item-report SHOULD be copied to AD
and WG. That report is needed mostly when the work does not target its
milestone, requesting
> I already requested before that all WGs SHOULD
> discuss their milestones and update it in each
> meeting or on the list.
No-one cares what you requested.
Didn't you get banned from the MANET list for lack of useful content?
Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
> On 05/17/2013 04:36 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>
>> On May 17, 2013, at 6:37 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>
>> On 5/17/2013 7:01 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
>>>
But WGs should be able to periodically summarize what they're doing -
what problem they
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
> On 05/17/2013 10:21 PM, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
>>
>> I notice that nowhere on this list is any mention of the charter
>> milestones
>> or dates. Is the Foo Proto draft due in 14 months or is it 14 months
>> behind
>> schedule? If the latter, w
45 matches
Mail list logo
