Jeff, Sam and Alvaro,
I guess that thing are different from wg to wg, given some hard core of
IETF wide wg process. I believe this is a good thing, and that practice
in one wg does not define IETF process.
On 2015-09-29 23:43, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
Sam (and to a bigger extent, Alvaro),
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 11:48:19AM -0700, aldrin ietf wrote:
Coming back to this specific document.. I’m asking the WG to consider not
publishing, not telling it what to do. In fact, if you look at the WG charter,
even though there is a specific Milestone, the WG is chartered to “define a
mechanism..” (not to produce use cases). Nonetheless, because the work has
already been done, the WG can make the decision whether it still wants to
publish or not.
If that is the case, it shouldn’t even be a WG document right?
Also, the deliverable was tracked as part of milestone isn’t it?
Does that mean, milestones truly doesn’t reflect the deliverable but only
Charter does?
Do not know all the semantics of the IETF WG processes. Clarification helps.
Adopting the document within the WG basically means the working group "owns"
the document and that we're motivated to get work on it done. This includes
things like tracking it via a milestone.
We talk about this as taking over the revision control. The motivation
point is important, when a document stops being individual and becomes a
working group document, there is a real difference for the authors /
editors.
Not all WG documents will be published as RFCs.
yes but that does not necessarily stop them from being wg documents.
Actually the status of wiki text is a bit ambivalent, at least if it is
possible for anyone to change it (that is often what is said to be the
benefit of the wiki).
The bigger question to argue IETF-wide is when we have these short-lived
documents, should we just start in something like a wiki especially if the
information is to be maintained long-term? Possibly. But as other people
have noted in different forums, the "IETF workflow" moves around the
publication life-cycle of Internet-Drafts.
I know that wiki's are popular, but I from one point of view they are
only one more thing to maintain.
Actually between the wg doucments page, the wg milestones and wiki-based
material, I frequently find that the document page need everything I
need, if maintained properly. The rest is mostly redundant.
Over a year and half I worked very hard to maintain milestones and found
that this was extra work, the document pae, including document history
give me what I need.
I'm not completely sold on the maintenance of the use cases long-term in the
wiki. In my opinion, the primary purpose of use case documents is to help
clarify and move forward protocol work. Ideally a portion of the use cases
are clear in the actual protocol documentation, just not their individual
breakdowns.
I guess that "not completely sold on" is an understatement?
/Loa
-- Jeff
