SM wrote:
Hi Alexey,
At 22:59 08-06-10, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
And how is this different from the procedure used recently? IESG can
still block (reject) pre-evaluation documents. The major difference
is that there is no public record of which AD raised a particular
blocking issue. With proper IESG review of pre-evaluation documents,
datatracker can be used for permanently storing such comments.
That's a reason to file a DISCUSS instead of taking the "Management
Item" path. Dave commented on the archival which provides a public
record of the changes/non-changes considered by the WG even after the
I-D expires. As there wasn't any blocking issues for the latest
pre-evaluation draft that was processed, I cannot tell what the record
from the IESG end will be like.
I am talking about IESG voting comments in datatracker.
I think it is important for the community to know how each AD voted and
which comments (blocking and non-blocking) were made. At the moment I am
the only person who has this information. Part of it is scattered in
various internal emails from various ADs, part of it can be found in the
recording of IESG telechats, etc.
If I step down from IESG my successor will not be able to reconstruct
this information easily.
I agree that the IESG can still block or reject a pre-evaluation
document.
Publication of the pre-evaluation documents as RFCs doesn't change
this agreement in any way.
Ned mentioned that these documents "are essentially a collection of
notes, nothing more". In Appendix B of
draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation-05, Barry provided a
detailed list of issues. There was an issue raised during the Gen-ART
review was about the requirements for advancement to Internet
Standard. There are two questions here; the level of detail needed
from outside the YAM WG to understand the issues that were identified
and requirements for advancement. I am not implying that the
pre-evaluation documents are not up to the quality required for
publication. My point is that it would require more effort to polish
each pre-evaluation document.
The last sentence: I doubt it would (see my reply to Ned), but of course
I can't promise that.
Referring to Tony's message, we would be changing the mechanism.
Whether this changes the agreement could be subject to discussion.
And the discussion can be a distraction from current work.
The whole YAM process and discussion about it is already a distraction
from current work ;-).
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
