> I don't think there is a deadline for objecting to an I-D. You are correct that objections may come at any time in the lifecycle of an I-D (and errata can be posted against an RFC).
But it does help to set a "weak deadline" for objections to accepting these documents as WG drafts, for a few reasons: 1. Deadlines help prioritize effort. If the WG knows that there is a two week deadline to object (say), then individuals can schedule time in the next two weeks to read the two drafts (draft-marocco-alto-problem-statement-05 and draft-kiesel-alto-reqs-02) and make their own decision: adopt, object, or not offer an opinion. 2. If no one objects by the deadline, then the WG chairs have a good sense of WG consensus. And it avoids 'voting'. 3. Adopting the drafts as WG drafts is a matter of efficiency. While the drafts are not 'done', at least they represent the best written understanding of the WG with regards to the problem statement and requirements. Non-WG members can see the adopted drafts on the WG webpage, e.g. http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/alto-charter.html. So the sooner that the WG chairs can gauge consensus, the better it is for everyone. 4. If someone's objection misses the deadline, it is not a catastrophe, as only an RFC is permanently published. Regardless, it would be helpful to the efforts and direction of the WG as a whole if the deadline was honored. -- Rich, a former WG co-chair :) -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Vijay K. Gurbani Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 2:13 PM To: Woundy, Richard Cc: alto Subject: Re: [alto] Adopting two I-Ds as WG documents Woundy, Richard wrote: > I also am in favor of making both items into WG items. Rich: OK, thanks. > Incidentally, is there a WG deadline for objecting? Interesting question. I don't think there is a deadline for objecting to an I-D. Technical dissent and solving it through consensus is the life-blood of a WG, so objections can be raised at any point in the process -- pre-WGLC, WGLC, Gen-Art review, and finally, IESG review. Even after a I-D becomes an RFC, errata can be filed against the RFC. In the most egregious case, the flawed RFC can be obsoleted with a new RFC. I must preface in that the above is my understanding, subject to corrections from the AD or other parties with more information and experience on the process. Thanks, - vijay -- Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA) Email: v...@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org} Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/ _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
