On 5/30/2013 7:59 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On May 29, 2013, at 11:53 PM, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
I can also see potential for adding some info to the Tao, but the danger there
is that document becomes too big and too detailed to be of use.
Many would claim it already is.
Original Message -
From: Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com
To: adr...@olddog.co.uk
Cc: dcroc...@bbiw.net; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 8:06 AM
On 5/29/13 10:53 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
I see a wedge :-)
The problem is where to stop.
Well, I don't know. Maybe the
detailed to be of use.
Cheers,
Adrian
-Original Message-
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu]
Sent: 29 May 2013 20:50
To: dcroc...@bbiw.net
Cc: Dave Crocker; Brian E Carpenter; adr...@olddog.co.uk; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: When to adopt a WG I-D
On 5/29/2013 11:56 AM, Dave
On 5/29/13 10:53 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
I see a wedge :-)
The problem is where to stop.
Well, I don't know. Maybe the problem is where to
start. That is to say, I don't know what problem
this document is trying to solve, or if there even
is a problem. I know that we've had some major
Hi Melinda,
Funny, but I agree.
To be honest at this point I'm sort of reflexively
anti-process-documents, unless there's an actual problem
that needs actual solution.
Which is why this isn't a process document.
The origin is a WG chairs Edu session. Turns out there was not a lot of clarity
On 5/29/13 11:16 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Which is why this isn't a process document.
Are you sure?
Melinda
On 5/30/2013 9:06 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 5/29/13 10:53 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
I see a wedge :-)
The problem is where to stop.
Well, I don't know. Maybe the problem is where to
start. That is to say, I don't know what problem
this document is trying to solve, or if there even
is a
Which is why this isn't a process document.
Are you sure?
Oooh, a quiz. I like quizzes.
Let me see. Yes or no. Hmmm.
Yes, I'm sure.
Your turn now.
Are you sure?
Ciao,
Adrian
On 5/29/13 11:56 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Yes, I'm sure.
Your turn now.
Are you sure?
No, not at all.
Melinda
On 5/30/2013 9:58 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 5/29/13 11:56 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Yes, I'm sure.
Your turn now.
Are you sure?
No, not at all.
Let me try to help...
A process document is a normative statement of structure and sequence
for a process. It is the organization's means of
Yes, I'm sure.
Your turn now.
Are you sure?
No, not at all.
did you somehow miss the pdu data formats and exchange ladder diagram?
if this is not a process document, then what the heck is it, chopped
liver?
randy
On May 29, 2013, at 11:53 PM, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
I can also see potential for adding some info to the Tao, but the danger
there is that document becomes too big and too detailed to be of use.
Many would claim it already is. We discussed that here a few years ago, and
To be honest at this point I'm sort of reflexively
anti-process-documents, unless there's an actual problem
that needs actual solution.
Which is why this isn't a process document.
Watching this thread, I sense the authors trying hard not to make a
process document, presumably because that
This doc seems more useful as a section of an update to the TAO of the
IETF. I agree with Brian that putting it forth as a separate document
may give the unintended impression that this is the formal procedure.
Joe
On 5/28/2013 1:26 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 28/05/2013 21:32, Adrian
On 5/29/2013 7:31 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
This doc seems more useful as a section of an update to the TAO of the
IETF. I agree with Brian that putting it forth as a separate document
may give the unintended impression that this is the formal procedure.
Nevermind that it isn't standards track or
On May 29, 2013, at 10:36 AM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 5/29/2013 7:31 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
This doc seems more useful as a section of an update to the TAO of the
IETF. I agree with Brian that putting it forth as a separate document
may give the unintended impression that this
On 5/29/2013 10:36 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 5/29/2013 7:31 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
This doc seems more useful as a section of an update to the TAO of the
IETF. I agree with Brian that putting it forth as a separate document
may give the unintended impression that this is the formal procedure.
On 5/29/2013 7:42 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
Yes, to some - especially newbies who don't know the process. Except
that's exactly whom you're trying to reach.
Consider yourself a newbie who has been told that the TAO gives all the
informal information on how the IETF works.
OK. So your premise is
On 5/29/2013 10:51 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 5/29/2013 7:42 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
Yes, to some - especially newbies who don't know the process. Except
that's exactly whom you're trying to reach.
Consider yourself a newbie who has been told that the TAO gives all the
informal information on
You can always include add some text from this document in the TAO and
add a reference so anybody wanting to know more could follow.
Also, to me, this I+D also targets new and not so new WG chairs, not
just new comers.
.as
On 5/29/13 2:57 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
On
On 5/29/2013 7:57 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
My premise is that when introducing people to a new game, it makes sense
to keep things simple and in one place p the TAO.
You can continue to disagree with that if you prefer.
I haven't disagreed with doing that. I disagreed with saying that that
On 5/29/2013 11:56 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 5/29/2013 7:57 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
My premise is that when introducing people to a new game, it makes sense
to keep things simple and in one place p the TAO.
You can continue to disagree with that if you prefer.
I haven't disagreed with doing
Hi,
Dave Crocker and I have this little draft [1] discussing the process and
considerations for creating formal working group drafts that are targeted for
publication.
We believe that this may help clarify some of the issues and concerns
associated with this part of the process. We are
, 2013 12:33 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: When to adopt a WG I-D
Hi,
Dave Crocker and I have this little draft [1] discussing the process and
considerations for creating formal working group drafts that are
targeted for publication.
We believe that this may help clarify some of the issues
Nicely written, largely stating what might be obvious for many, but
still nice to see it in black and white.
A few comments/suggestions:
1) Section 3. Authors/Editors
I suggest that you suggest that WG (co)chair(s) add an editor that is
unrelated to the
-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Adrian Farrel
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 12:33 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: When to adopt a WG I-D
Hi,
Dave Crocker and I have this little draft [1] discussing the process and
considerations for creating formal working group
It is difficult to read, because I am expecting a process and find
something else,
I started to read, but got confused (stoped reading), why you are titling
it as creating WG-draft and mentioning the adoption into the document. I
understand that the creating first is *individual-draft* not
On 28/05/2013 15:36, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
It is difficult to read, because I am expecting a process and find
something else,
I started to read, but got confused (stoped reading), why you are
titling it as creating WG-draft and mentioning the adoption into the
document. I understand that
Adrian,
I'm fine with this draft as long as it stays informational and is
viewed as a commentary on how what we are doing in the border land
between individual and formal working group documents, i.e. this is
not an IETF process text.
Names of ID file are a bit trickier than what I get from
On 5/28/2013 10:52 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
... The only
requirement is that the chairs conclude that the existence such a draft
has WG consensus.
...
Strictly speaking, I believe the only requirement for a document to be
published as a WG document is that a WG chair approves it.
I do
In reading through the draft, particularly the section on questions for
WG adoption of a draft, I did not see the questions I consider most
pertinent:
Does the WG think this is a reasonable (preferably good) basis for
starting to work collectively on the deliverable?
(Apologies if it was
there is also the not uncommon event where an idea starts as an individual idea,
moves into a WG, is rejected by the WG, becomes an individual idea, is picked up
by another WG, rejected, (lather, rinse, repeat), and then the -right- WG is
formed
and it is processed that way. In the current
On 5/28/2013 10:22 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
In reading through the draft, particularly the section on questions for
WG adoption of a draft, I did not see the questions I consider most
pertinent:
I appreciate Dave and Adrian for producing this helpful start, and I'm
mostly comfortable with
On 28/05/2013 21:32, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi,
Dave Crocker and I have this little draft [1] discussing the process and
considerations for creating formal working group drafts that are targeted for
publication.
We believe that this may help clarify some of the issues and concerns
Hi,
I have never been a wg chair but I think that this document may be very
useful and helpful (at least it clarifies many things to me).
I have some comments:
- To me Section 2.1 (Formal Steps) looks better after 2.2 (Criteria of
Adoption).
- Section 2.2 does not set up a
35 matches
Mail list logo
