: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 3:31 AM
Subject: Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
On Friday, January 12, 2007 04:04:08 PM -0500 Sam Hartman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me ask a silly question here: Why do we want to distinguish proto
shepherds from chairs? I at least hope all my WGs
On 2007-01-18 09:49, Tom.Petch wrote:
Who is shepherd for an individual submission?
The sponsoring AD. However, draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines
(which will be updated shortly, so don't worry about
its terminology issues) adds:
Once the AD has agreed to sponsor a document, the authors need
Brian, Tom,
Who is shepherd for an individual submission?
The sponsoring AD. However, draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines
(which will be updated shortly, so don't worry about
its terminology issues) adds:
Once the AD has agreed to sponsor a document, the authors need to
provide a
We're rapidly approaching diminishing returns here...
On 2007-01-16 21:17, Michael Thomas wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-01-15 17:11, Michael Thomas wrote:
Michael Thomas, Cisco Systems
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Why not simply:
- copy all Comments and
inline
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Henning Schulzrinne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: lconroy [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: Identifying mailing list for discussion(Re: Tracking resolution of
DISCUSSes
Steven M. Bellovin writes:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:26:33 -0500
John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps we should make it a requirement that any document that is
Last Called must be associated with a mailing list, perhaps one
whose duration is limited to the Last Call period and any
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I think you are deeply misunderstanding how PROTO shepherding is
supposed to work.
That's a pretty basic disconnect.
Perhaps you can summarize how it is supposed to work?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
On 2007-01-17 16:41, Dave Crocker wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I think you are deeply misunderstanding how PROTO shepherding is
supposed to work.
That's a pretty basic disconnect.
Perhaps you can summarize how it is supposed to work?
The way it's described in
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2007-01-17 16:41, Dave Crocker wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I think you are deeply misunderstanding how PROTO shepherding is
supposed to work.
That's a pretty basic disconnect.
Perhaps you can summarize how it is supposed to work?
The
Hi again folks,
xml2rfc does process the workgroupBlah/workgroup element already.
I assume that this element will be removed/replaced during RFC-ED
processing.
Thus structured naming of drafts is not needed if the I-D author does
his/her job.
What is missing is a mapping from WG to the ML
Michael Thomas, Cisco Systems
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Why not simply:
- copy all Comments and Discusses to the WG mailing list
- hold all discussions on the WG mailing list until resolution
Why would we do this for technical typos and other things that
are
What follows is not something I'm suggesting that we talk about anytime
soon, but perhaps we should talk about it someday.
Ralph, I think I've already indicated why I (and others)
believe that systematically posting raw DISCUSSes to lists
would be the wrong move.
Brian
On 2007-01-15
lconroy wrote:
What is missing is a mapping from WG to the ML subscribe address.
I would have thought that this could be a fairly fixed table that could
be used by a reasonable hack to xml2rfc. If there is a workgroup element,
the tied ML address could be auto-generated and placed on the next
The table of mappings constitutes an on-going administrative
challenge. Also as noted, not all I-Ds are tied to working groups.
But every draft should be able to fit into one of the IETF areas; all
areas have, as far as I know, area-wide mailing lists. At least for
TSV, the list
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
The table of mappings constitutes an on-going administrative
challenge. Also as noted, not all I-Ds are tied to working groups.
But every draft should be able to fit into one of the IETF areas;
...
Setting up a mailing list for each personal draft, with unclear
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-01-15 17:11, Michael Thomas wrote:
Michael Thomas, Cisco Systems
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Why not simply:
- copy all Comments and Discusses to the WG mailing list
- hold all discussions on the WG mailing list until resolution
Why
On Friday, January 12, 2007 04:04:08 PM -0500 Sam Hartman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me ask a silly question here: Why do we want to distinguish proto
shepherds from chairs? I at least hope all my WGs will produce
documents. That means most of my chairs will be proto shepherds.
Does the
On 2007-01-08 11:08, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
The I-D tracker provides a handy button for the DISCUSSing AD
to forward the DISCUSS to parties outside the IESG - normally
by default it's the WG Chairs. I'm not convinced personally
that sending the raw DISCUSS to the whole WG is the correct
Hi Brian,
If an AD modifies their DISCUSS text, or moves a DISCUSS to a COMMENT,
all that is in the tracker.
Yes. I agree. *If*.
Some ADs are very good about this. (Shall I name names? ;-)
But some are less good.
Often a Discuss is just cleared.
What isn't there is the email trail.
Are you
Why not simply:
- copy all Comments and Discusses to the WG mailing list
- hold all discussions on the WG mailing list until resolution
Why would we do this for technical typos and other things that
are essentially trivial? I'd expect an AD to enter WG discussion
when raising fundamental
On 2007-01-15 17:11, Michael Thomas wrote:
Michael Thomas, Cisco Systems
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Why not simply:
- copy all Comments and Discusses to the WG mailing list
- hold all discussions on the WG mailing list until resolution
Why would we do this for
Why would we do this for technical typos and other things that
are essentially trivial? I'd expect an AD to enter WG discussion
when raising fundamental issues, but not for straightforward
points.
This is what should, IMHO, be the PROTO shepherd's job to decide
about, as well as
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-01-08 11:08, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
a) we believe that it is indeed the document shepherd's
job to summarise issues and take them back to the WG, as
stated in section 3.3 of draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding.
This certainly seems reasonable.
--On Monday, 15 January, 2007 09:26 -0800 Dave Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the current model, any follow-on discussion really is
between the Design Team and Chairs, with the AD. This
introduces the possibility of significant late-stage changes
that are agreed to by a smaller set
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:26:33 -0500
John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps we should make it a requirement that any document that
is Last Called must be associated with a mailing list, perhaps
one whose duration is limited to the Last Call period and any
follow-ups until the document
Following up on that, I suggest a requirement that any DISCUSSes be posted
to that mailing list, along with conversation/resolution of the DISCUSSes.
I would very much like to see those last steps out in the open.
Only drawback to separate mailing list is that it requires active
involvement to
Good issues are being raised. Certainly there needs to be openness
about any substantive changes in drafts during the IESG review process.
I'm not enamored of the idea of yet more mailing lists to subscribe to,
however. Why can't we rely on the PROTO Shepherds to do the right thing
with regard
Nelson, David wrote:
Good issues are being raised. Certainly there needs to be openness
about any substantive changes in drafts during the IESG review process.
I'm not enamored of the idea of yet more mailing lists to subscribe to,
however. Why can't we rely on the PROTO Shepherds to do the
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:26:33 -0500
John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps we should make it a requirement that any document that
is Last Called must be associated with a mailing list, perhaps
one whose duration is limited to the Last Call period and any
On Jan 15, 2007, at 1:46 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
I have argued for years that an I-D that doesn't say in its status
of this memo section which mailing list it is to be discussed on
is incomplete, but I don't seem to have achieved much success for
that.
100% agree. On many of my
Hi Folks,
as a slight counter to that:
I have had feedback in the past from WGs that it is unwise to include
the
WG's ML inside a draft intended (eventually) to be an RFC.
The rationale was that the WG (and its ML) will disappear, whilst an
RFC is forever.
However, an unprocessed/not
While not harmful, I'm not sure this is necessary if the more-or-less
standard naming convention for drafts is followed for non-WG drafts:
draft-conroy-sipping-foo-bar
indicates that the author Conroy believes the sipping WG to be the
appropriate place for discussion, just like
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
While not harmful, I'm not sure this is necessary if the more-or-less
standard naming convention for drafts is followed for non-WG drafts:
draft-conroy-sipping-foo-bar
indicates that the author Conroy believes the sipping WG to be the
appropriate place for
lconroy wrote:
Hi Folks,
as a slight counter to that:
I have had feedback in the past from WGs that it is unwise to include the
WG's ML inside a draft intended (eventually) to be an RFC.
The rationale was that the WG (and its ML) will disappear, whilst an
RFC is forever.
However, an
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
While not harmful, I'm not sure this is necessary if the more-or-less
standard naming convention for drafts is followed for non-WG drafts:
draft-conroy-sipping-foo-bar
indicates that the author Conroy believes the sipping WG to be the
appropriate place for
On 2007-01-13 12:32, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hey, I had promised to keep out of this having already used my quota of
emails for the months, but then Fred said...
That said, I _do_ wish the tracker would maintain history of DISCUSS
and COMMENT comments, instead of only showing the latest ballot
Hey, I had promised to keep out of this having already used my quota of
emails for the months, but then Fred said...
That said, I _do_ wish the tracker would maintain history of DISCUSS and
COMMENT comments, instead of only showing the latest ballot text.
It does. Click view details, and
--On 12. januar 2007 00:28 -0500 Jeffrey Hutzelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That said, I _do_ wish the tracker would maintain history of DISCUSS and
COMMENT comments, instead of only showing the latest ballot text.
it does - every version of a DISCUSS or a COMMENT is stored in the
Hi Jeff,
on 2007-01-12 06:38 Jeffrey Hutzelman said the following:
There is work in progress (requirements-gathering appears to be nearly
complete) to extend the tracker to provide WG chairs with tools to track
documents while they are still in the hands of the working group. I expect
Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
It is possible that the simplest resolution in cases where the shepherd
is not a chair is to give the shepherd the same access rights as a chair.
Hi, do you mean s/Chair/AD/ here ?
Frank
___
Ietf mailing list
Hi Frank,
on 2007-01-12 13:38 Frank Ellermann said the following:
Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
It is possible that the simplest resolution in cases where the shepherd
is not a chair is to give the shepherd the same access rights as a chair.
Hi, do you mean s/Chair/AD/ here ?
No. The way I
Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
Hi, do you mean s/Chair/AD/ here ?
No. The way I see it, Shepherd 'write' rights would be a subset of the
Chair rights, which will be a subset of the AD rights.
Why should WG Chairs - if they're not proto-shepherds - have write
access
on the I-D tracker at all ? A
Hi Frank,
on 2007-01-12 15:37 Frank Ellermann said the following:
Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
Hi, do you mean s/Chair/AD/ here ?
No. The way I see it, Shepherd 'write' rights would be a subset of the
Chair rights, which will be a subset of the AD rights.
Why should WG Chairs - if they're
Let me ask a silly question here: Why do we want to distinguish proto
shepherds from chairs? I at least hope all my WGs will produce
documents. That means most of my chairs will be proto shepherds.
Does the difference matter?
___
Ietf mailing list
Hi Sam,
on 2007-01-12 22:04 Sam Hartman said the following:
Let me ask a silly question here: Why do we want to distinguish proto
shepherds from chairs? I at least hope all my WGs will produce
documents. That means most of my chairs will be proto shepherds.
Does the difference matter?
On Jan 12, 2007, at 6:28 AM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
That said, I _do_ wish the tracker would maintain history of
DISCUSS and COMMENT comments, instead of only showing the latest
ballot text.
It does. Click view details, and you get the substance of the
commentary.
On Monday, January 08, 2007 11:03:00 AM + Adrian Farrel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we don't do this then they simply are not DISCUSSes. They are just
post-it notes.
Not true. Remember that DISCUSS is a ballot position. As I understand it
from my conversation with an IESG member
On Monday, January 08, 2007 12:52:16 PM +0100 Simon Josefsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This lack of communication may cause friction. IESG members raise
issues, which ends up the tracker, and for which they might not
receive any response at all on. They may get the impression that the
On Monday, January 08, 2007 08:09:58 PM +0100 Frank Ellermann
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about allowing PROTO shepherds to post to the I-D tracker?
Can't they ? At least the questionnaire (modulo 1F) is posted.
Not at present. The writeup is posted by whoever processed the
While more information is always good, I'll note that it's linked to
from the WG Chairs page; it, in turn, is listed on the IETF home page.
There's also a link from each WG's charter page to the status page
which lists every document from the WG and its status. The status
field, in turn, is a
Cutting to the chase:
How about allowing PROTO shepherds to post to the I-D tracker?
See whether draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-tracker-ext-01.txt
covers what you want. If not, immediately would be
a very good time to tell the PROTO team.
Brian
___
Adrian Farrel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But note that the current version of the tracker does not raise the
DISCUSS with anyone. It simply logs it.
I agree, and think this is an important observation.
This lack of communication may cause friction. IESG members raise
issues, which ends up the
Pacific Standard Time
To: Adrian Farrel
Cc: Harald Alvestrand; ietf@ietf.org
Subject:Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
Adrian Farrel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But note that the current version of the tracker does not raise the
DISCUSS with anyone. It simply logs it.
I agree
On 2007-01-09 14:03, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
...
The tracker is not mentioned in any of the process documents
That is normal; it's a tool used in support of the process,
and we could in theory use papyrus rolls instead.
I agree we need procedural documents too; that is
what IONs are for
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 05:03:57 -0800
Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have had the same experience.
The tracker is not mentioned in any of the process documents or the
desription of ietf process or the web site (which continues to be
useless).
The impression is of a clique
The I-D tracker provides a handy button for the DISCUSSing AD
to forward the DISCUSS to parties outside the IESG - normally
by default it's the WG Chairs. I'm not convinced personally
that sending the raw DISCUSS to the whole WG is the correct answer.
Sometimes it can be quickly resolved (for
On 2007-01-08 12:03, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Brian,
The I-D tracker provides a handy button for the DISCUSSing AD
to forward the DISCUSS to parties outside the IESG - normally
by default it's the WG Chairs.
Brian, I am not suggesting that IESG has to do anything different. Let
them continue to
But regardless of this, I am concerned that the resolution of a DISCUSS
is not archived anywhere. If you want to restrict the DISCUSS from
reaching the WG unless the WG chair decides, then you MUST log the
resolution (not just the fact of reslution) of each DISCUSS in the I-D
tracker.
Well,
Adrian Farrel wrote:
3. Are notes to the RFC Editor inserted in the I-D tracker?
I certainly haven't seen them there in the past.
It's at the end of the IESG evaluation record. There you'll
find a draft of the approval announcement, and that contains
Note to RFC editor + IESG note + IANA
Adrian Farrel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By the way, would it be possible for all DISCUSSes and COMMENTs for
I-Ds originated by a working group to be *automatically* copied to the
mailing list of the working group? The reasons are:
- the WG chairs, editors, and interested parties should
not
Agreement, but niggles
As Spencer has noted, a DISCUSS often passes through several iterations
from the time a concern is raised to the time it's clear what has to be
discussed with the WG. I think it would make the IESG's work more difficult
if every iteration of such DISCUSSes were
As often, Spencer speaks sense.
By the way, would it be possible for all DISCUSSes and COMMENTs for I-Ds
originated by a working group to be *automatically* copied to the mailing
list of the working group? The reasons are:
- the WG chairs, editors, and interested parties should
not have to
62 matches
Mail list logo
