WG, still no WGLC comments or any further responses...
Let me share my deep frustration with you. I have cautioned against low participation levels last year when the question was if the WG should be concluded or continue to work. Then, the overall opinion was that there were sufficient interest in the topic. With that on my mind, I put another round of effort into syslog-protocol. I am now working on this for several years. I spent considerable work on it. Each time when it looked close to finish, either some radical new thoughts came in (which is fine), an old issue was re-itereated (which I do not consider to be OK) or some other unexpected show-stopper showed up. This time, it is the insufficient review. I am thoroughly disappointed and now need to think that all the time I put into this effort is wasted. This is quite regrettable. However, I do not intend to spent any more time on it without the *solid* indication that the work can be completed and published. As such, I will NOT make any further edits at this time and I will also hold my planned review of other WG documents. I will also refrain from commenting on any technical issues. Probably the best option at this stage would be to recommend to the IESG to finally conclude the WG. Thanks, Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: Rainer Gerhards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2006 2:34 AM > To: David Harrington; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Syslog] WGLC and document advancement > > David, > > Thanks for the reminder. > > I have read -transport-tls several times, only been unable to have a > close look at the latest increment. To my understanding, > there were only > minor changes to the document, so I am still happy with it. > > I am concerned about the lack of feedback to my response to your > concerns on the "enc" SD-ID and transparency of MSG and > STRUCTURED-DATA > in -protocol. I am hesitant to do any edits until there has been any > final discussion of these issues (reminder: I am most probably able to > edit starting September, 18th). > > I have roughly reviewed -transport-tls (due to my time > constraints). All > in all, it looks good enough to me. My main concerns have already been > addressed by adding the version number. I think, however, this point > needs some more discussion. > > There are many other points in -tls that could be discussed. > HOWEVER, I > think discussing any of them now would make us miss our > milestone. What > is there is well enough. It could be better. Let's do that at later > stage (version field permits this). > > We have been discussing syslog-protocol and -tls (and the work leading > to it) for 3 or 4 years now, often going in circles. Participation > levels have varied greatly. My personal opinion is that many folks are > finally bored with going ever and ever over the same arguments. But I > may be wrong. Getting some work done would definitely help us. > > We should not aim for the perfect. In an ideal world, we > would have only > ideal solutions. But we do not life in an ideal world. If NASA feels > strong enough to launch a shuttle with an imperfect fuel > cell, we should > probably feel strong enough in putting some non-ideal but obviously > useful work to completion. So please comment on the drafts and open > issues. > > Rainer > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Harrington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 1:23 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [Syslog] WGLC and document advancement > > > > Hi, > > > > There are good things and bad things that come with having a new WG > > co-chair. > > I think I have helped the WG by driving the completion of > milestones. > > That's the good part. > > The bad part is I bring my own opinions of what adequate > review means. > > > > The IETF has started using a new process, called document > shepherding, > > for the advancement of documents to the standards-track. The chairs > > are given much more responsibility and authority to decide whether > > documents are ready for advancement. They are expected to write up > > their analyses of WG issues, consensus, and degree of review of the > > documents being submitted, and these analyses will be reviewed at > > every step of the process after this point, as the members > of the IESG > > try to determine whether the document really is ready for advancment > > to standards-track. You can see the details they expect us > to provide > > by reading draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-07 > (which has been > > expanded quite a bit from the -05- draft used during your earlier > > WGLCs). > > > > I have shepherded a number of documents through the process, and I > > know how difficult it can be to get documents through the > process, and > > how much the documents can be delayed during the standards-approval > > process if they are not really ready for submission to that process. > > > > I am concerned that the documents have not gotten adequate review > > during WGLC. There have been very few comments made, and I > would like > > to see more reviews done by the members of the WG for each of these > > documents. > > > > If you have problems with the documents, speak up now, so the chairs > > can be sure your concerns are recognized and have been addressed. > > > > If you have read the document, and found no important problems and > > have no significant objections to the document, and belive > it is ready > > to be submitted to the advancement process, please send a > note to the > > WG saying so. > > > > David Harrington > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Syslog mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog > > > > _______________________________________________ > Syslog mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog > _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
