On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Abdussalam Baryun <
abdussalambar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >But there's no formal process for that, and I think
> >that's how we want it to be.
>
> I don't want no formal in a formal organisation, usually unformal process
> only happen in unformal organisations, so
On Nov 29, 2012, at 12:03 PM, SM wrote:
> According to some RFC:
>
> "All relevant documents to be discussed at a session should be published
> and available as Internet-Drafts at least two weeks before
> a session starts."
>
> If the above was followed there shouldn't be any draft submiss
On 29 Nov 2012, at 18:51, SM wrote:
> Hi Ed,
> At 06:54 29-11-2012, Edward Lewis wrote:
>> Earlier in the thread I saw that someone expressed dismay that BOFs seem to
>> be WG's that have already been meeting in secret. I agree with that. At
>> the last meeting in Atlanta, I filled in session
On 11/30/2012 3:29 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
There is no formal process that involves "adopting" anything.
If you mean that we haven't documented a/the formal process, you are
correct. If you mean that the IETF has not moved towards rather formal
steps for explicitly adopting working group draft
>> There is no formal process that involves "adopting" anything.
>
> If you mean that we haven't documented a/the formal process, you are
> correct. If you mean that the IETF has not moved towards rather formal
> steps for explicitly adopting working group drafts, I disagree.
...
> Today, there is
At 06:09 30-11-2012, George, Wes wrote:
[WEG] My original message simply notes that this is the 3rd or more
time in my recent memory that there has been a serious question
within some part of the IETF about when in a document's lifecycle
and maturity is the "right" time to adopt it as a WG docu
On 11/28/2012 7:58 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
Let's start with a basic point and work from there:
There is no formal process that involves "adopting" anything.
If you mean that we haven't documented a/the formal process, you are
correct. If you mean that the IETF has not moved towards rather for
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Melinda Shore
>
> I'm not very clear on what problem you're trying to solve, or why it's a
> problem. I've seen some stuff around working group draft adoption that
> I don't like very much but am not sure that I'd identify
Hi Spencer,
At 15:16 29-11-2012, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
In addition to the cases Adrian asked about, isn't there also the
case of an author/editor updating a draft that has already been
discussed and then submitting it during IETF week?
Yes.
Regards,
-sm
Hi Adrian,
At 13:16 29-11-2012, Adrian Farrel wrote:
What about drafts that not for discussion at a session? What about drafts that
have completed last call or are in IESG processing?
I did not verify the state of the drafts for above when I listed the
working groups. I listed a working group
On 11/29/12 2:32 PM, George, Wes wrote:
> [WEG] I'm sorry if it was unclear, but I am not saying that
> *everything* must be specified, nor do I think anyone should
> undertake an effort to even identify all of the things that are
> currently unspecified. I'm pointing out a specific area of confusi
> From: barryle...@gmail.com [mailto:barryle...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Barry Leiba
> we have a
> million things that are unspecified and should be unspecified and left
> to management choice. Trying to find all of those and explicitly say so
> will be a frustrating exercise, and one that won't
On 11/29/2012 3:16 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Just picking at one point...
According to some RFC:
"All relevant documents to be discussed at a session should be published
and available as Internet-Drafts at least two weeks before
a session starts."
If the above was followed there
On 30/11/2012, at 8:14 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> I'll note that it seems possible that overspecifying process
>> could potentially cause more protests rather than fewer.
>
> or good folk just walking away. there is a reason we are at the ietf
> and not the itu. rule obsessed and process hidebo
Just picking at one point...
> According to some RFC:
>
>"All relevant documents to be discussed at a session should be published
> and available as Internet-Drafts at least two weeks before
> a session starts."
>
> If the above was followed there shouldn't be any draft submissions
>
> I'll note that it seems possible that overspecifying process
> could potentially cause more protests rather than fewer.
or good folk just walking away. there is a reason we are at the ietf
and not the itu. rule obsessed and process hidebound is probably not
the most productive use of smart fol
At 08:24 29-11-2012, George, Wes wrote:
adoption), let's do that. If we actively *don't* want an IETF-wide
procedure here, we can even document that the process for WG
adoption of drafts is WG-specific and could document those specifics
in a WG policies wiki document maintained by the chairs. T
Hi Ed,
At 06:54 29-11-2012, Edward Lewis wrote:
Earlier in the thread I saw that someone expressed dismay that BOFs
seem to be WG's that have already been meeting in secret. I agree
with that. At the last meeting in Atlanta, I filled in sessions
with BOFs and found that the ones I chose seeme
On 11/29/12 10:06 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> I believe that one is the case, though others can weigh in with
> opinions as well. Yes, we could change our documentation to
> explicitly say that this particular decision is a management choice.
> But I'll caution you against trying to do that in genera
> If we actively *don't*
> want an IETF-wide procedure here, we can even document that the process
> for WG adoption of drafts is WG-specific and could document those specifics
> in a WG policies wiki document maintained by the chairs.
I believe that one is the case, though others can weigh in wit
> From: barryle...@gmail.com [mailto:barryle...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Barry Leiba
>
> There is no formal process that involves "adopting" anything. Working
> group chairs appoint document editors (this is in RFC 2418, Section
> 6.3). There is nothing anywhere that specifies how the first vers
On Nov 29, 2012, at 4:42, Eliot Lear wrote:
> A simpler explanation is that the authors and editors of work are more
> immersed than others, and therefore project more authority.
To me, when "projecting authority" one is either demonstrating a deeper
understanding of the topic than others or is b
On Wed 28/Nov/2012 16:18:05 +0100 Keith Moore wrote:
> On 11/27/2012 01:00 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> This brings up a question that I have as an AD: A number of times
>> since I started in this position in March, documents have come to
>> the IESG that prompted me (or another AD) to look into the d
I also support pushing back in those circumstances, but I do (or would, as
an AD) accept the minutes as a record of WG discussion. Minutes are, or at
least are supposed to be, posted to the list for discussion and informal
approval by the WG. This just means the minutes, especially about
document
[apologies to some for duplicates]
Hi Geoff,
On 11/29/12 3:56 AM, Geoff Huston wrote:
> It's nice to have reasonably well thought out ideas come in.
>
> Which then become highly defined precepts that become incredibly resistant to
> IETF change on the basis that they have been well thought out
On 29/11/2012, at 3:32 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
> On 11/28/12 12:57 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> I'm increasingly seeing a "paradigm" where the review happens _before_
>>> adoption as a WG draft.
>> and one consequence is that the design gets done outside of the ietf
>> process.
>>
>
> But this i
On 29/11/2012, at 2:36 AM, "George, Wes" wrote:
>> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> John Leslie
>>
>>I'm increasingly seeing a "paradigm" where the review happens
>> _before_ adoption as a WG draft. After adoption, there's a great lull
>> until the
> It seems to me that these variants are dependent on the people in the WG,
> the workload of the group, the chairs, past precedent, AD preferences,
etc.
> It makes it difficult on both draft editors and those seeking to follow
the
> discussion for there to be such a disparity from WG to WG on when
Hi Barry,
I thank you to open this discussion. I tried to open this discussion before
on the list but was ignored, however, seeing your input made me think that
there is importance to the subject. IMO I prefer the discussion list,
because we all integrate and we all are present in its domain. In F
I'm increasingly seeing a "paradigm" where the review happens _before_
adoption as a WG draft.
and one consequence is that the design gets done outside of the ietf
process.
But this isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's nice to have reasonably
well thought out ideas come in.
The IETF has
I guess that a better question is:
"What are the expectations if a draft becomes an WG document?"
The opinions ranges from:
a) It is something that some members of the WG consider inside the scope
of the charter.
z) This is a contract that the IESG will bless this document!
Not all
On 11/28/12 12:57 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> I'm increasingly seeing a "paradigm" where the review happens _before_
>> adoption as a WG draft.
> and one consequence is that the design gets done outside of the ietf
> process.
>
But this isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's nice to have reasonably
we
6
> To: John Leslie; Barry Leiba
> Cc: IETF discussion list
> Subject: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the
> mailing lists")
>
> > From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> > John Leslie
> >
> we do not have adequate guidance for either WG chairs or participants on
> when it is generally appropriate to adopt a draft as a WG document.
...
> It seems to me that these variants are dependent on the people in the WG,
> the workload of the group, the chairs, past precedent, AD preferences, e
Hi, Wes, all,
+1 to "no one-size-fits-all".
A model that's worked well in a few groups I've been involved in is something
between (2) and (3), where the defined criteria is "complete enough that
interoperable implementations could conceivably be produced", a slightly lower
bar; with the added
On 11/27/2012 10:00 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
We see a string of versions posted, some with significant updates to
the text, but *no* corresponding mailing list discussion. Nothing at
all.
...
When I ask the responsible AD or the document shepherd about that, the
response is that, well, no on
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> John Leslie
>
> I'm increasingly seeing a "paradigm" where the review happens
> _before_ adoption as a WG draft. After adoption, there's a great lull
> until the deadline for the next IETF week. There tend to be a few,
On 11/27/2012 01:00 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
This brings up a question that I have as an AD: A number of times
since I started in this position in March, documents have come to the
IESG that prompted me (or another AD) to look into the document
history for... to find that there's basically no his
On 11/28/2012 12:15 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 27/11/2012 18:00, Barry Leiba wrote:
...
So here's my question:
Does the community want us to push back on those situations? Does the
community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing
lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings,
ovember 2012 11:57
To: John Leslie
Cc: Barry Leiba; IETF discussion list
Subject: Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"
--! WARNING ! --
This message originates from outside our organisation,
either from an external partner or from the in
On Nov 28, 2012, at 1:57 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> I'm increasingly seeing a "paradigm" where the review happens _before_
>> adoption as a WG draft.
>
> and one consequence is that the design gets done outside of the ietf
> process.
+1
> I'm increasingly seeing a "paradigm" where the review happens _before_
> adoption as a WG draft.
and one consequence is that the design gets done outside of the ietf
process.
randy
--On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 08:15 + Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
>...
> The list of attendees is now taken care of by the scanned blue
> sheets, but the barely literate "he said, she said" minutes
> from most WGs are pretty much useless. For people attempting
> to participate only via the
g] On Behalf Of
> Melinda Shore
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 9:42 PM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"
>
> I think the core issue is whether or not there's been adequate review,
> and it seems to me to be appropriate to r
On 27/11/2012 18:00, Barry Leiba wrote:
...
> So here's my question:
> Does the community want us to push back on those situations? Does the
> community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing
> lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to the extent that the
> community would wa
I generally agree with Joe. There should be discussion but the
distribution of that discussion between meeting and mailing list is
not significant; however, there must be sufficient opportunity for
objection or additional comments on the mailing list and, in the case
of discussion at a meeting, the
Barry Leiba wrote:
>
> A number of times since I started in this position in March, documents
> have come to the IESG that prompted me (or another AD) to look into
> the document history for... to find that there's basically no history.
> We see a string of versions posted, some with significant
+1
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 13:00 -0500 Barry Leiba
wrote:
...
So here's my question:
Does the community want us to push back on those situations?
Does the community believe that the real IETF work is done on
the mailing lists, and not in the face-to-face meeting
On 11/27/2012 10:07 AM, Marc Blanchet wrote:
Le 2012-11-27 à 13:00, Barry Leiba a écrit :
So here's my question:
Does the community want us to push back on those situations? Does the
community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing
lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
> --On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 13:00 -0500 Barry Leiba
> wrote:
>
> >...
> > So here's my question:
> > Does the community want us to push back on those situations?
> > Does the community believe that the real IETF work is done on
> > the mai
Hi Barry,
At 10:00 27-11-2012, Barry Leiba wrote:
We accept that, and we review the document as usual, accepting the
document shepherd's writeup that says that the document has "broad
consensus of the working group."
:-)
So here's my question:
Does the community want us to push back on those
--On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 13:00 -0500 Barry Leiba
wrote:
>...
> So here's my question:
> Does the community want us to push back on those situations?
> Does the community believe that the real IETF work is done on
> the mailing lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to
> the extent
+1
--dmm
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Geoff Huston wrote:
>
> On 28/11/2012, at 5:00 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Dale R. Worley
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> That attendance showed me that most of the IETF meeting was a
> >>> waste of time, that it was e-mail th
On 28/11/2012, at 5:00 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
>>
>>> That attendance showed me that most of the IETF meeting was a
>>> waste of time, that it was e-mail that was the main vehicle for work,
>>> and I think that the IETF web site has it a
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 07:33:29PM +, t.p. wrote:
> Chair, that unless and until people speak up on the list, eg during Last
> Call, then the I-D in question is going nowhere - which I find healthy.
I strongly agree with this.
> If people continue not to speak up, well then perhaps it is time
I think the core issue is whether or not there's been adequate
review, and it seems to me to be appropriate to request volunteers
from wg participants to review documents before moving them along.
Melinda
- Original Message -
From: "Barry Leiba"
To: "IETF discussion list"
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 6:00 PM
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Dale R. Worley
wrote:
> >
> >> That attendance showed me that most of the IETF meeting was a
> >> waste of time, that it was e-mail that was t
> So here's my question:
> Does the community want us to push back on those situations? Does the
> community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing
> lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to the extent that the
> community would want the IESG to refuse to publish documents w
On 11/27/12 10:00 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
That attendance showed me that most of the IETF meeting was a
waste of time, that it was e-mail that was the main vehicle for work,
and I think that the IETF web site has it about right when it says
Le 2012-11-27 à 13:00, Barry Leiba a écrit :
>
> So here's my question:
> Does the community want us to push back on those situations? Does the
> community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing
> lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to the extent that the
> community wou
60 matches
Mail list logo
