Hi,
Margaret's commentary on the standards review panel got me thinking of
the same thing I had considered potentially problematic.
If I understood her concern correctly, the point was that in the
standards review panel, the IESG would basically still continue
reviewing the documents (at
Hi,
Using my newtrk post as a springboard for a more generic issue:
As Harald said on the plenary, it seems more or less required to
create a mechanism where certain process changes could be approved and
reviewed without conflicting seriously with the technical day-to-day
job (as Bert said)
As a result of the recovery of my wife's purse, I now have two extra
bus tickets. Contact me if you're interested.
--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
FYI, and to get people's minds in gear for tonight's
technical discussion, here's the list of things we had
suggested when we called for technical topics:
1/ The big interconnect -- voice and IP service provision (without
re-running the VOIPEER bof).
2/ Does the IETF still follow (observe)
I would never suggest adopting a 4-year project schedule, but would
suggest a number of simple project management techniques and goals:
- As part of WG chair training, train WG chairs in basic project
management techniques and indicate that driving progress is an important
role.
- For large
On 3-aug-2005, at 15:09, Pekka Savola wrote:
Add an extra 15 mins for lunch, it makes it so less 'rushed'.
That would be a very good idea.
Personally, I don't see much need for lengthening the lunch;
I can see how having more time for lunch would be beneficial, but I'm
not sure if a
At 10:05 04/08/2005, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
I would never suggest adopting a 4-year project schedule, but would
suggest a number of simple project management techniques and goals:
- As part of WG chair training, train WG chairs in basic project
management techniques and indicate that
On 3-aug-2005, at 16:09, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
For the cases where there is a major infrastructure change that
needs to
be achieved I would like to see a more interactive process. At present
the development model is a bunch of boffins go out into a shed, build
something and then ask
I doubt that this is going to solve anything. All basic project management
techniques assume that a project has a deadline and that the people working
We do have deadlines: charters, and external customers (implementors,
other SDOs).
on it have some incentive to get the work done. This is
Hi,
ext Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
At 10:05 04/08/2005, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
I would never suggest adopting a 4-year project schedule, but would
suggest a number of simple project management techniques and goals:
- As part of WG chair training, train WG chairs in basic project
management
Four observations on the plenary discussion of my drafts...
As I said at the end, I had not planned to come to the
microphone at all. I wanted to listen. What I heard
included...
(1) To repeat what I did say (since it was apparently hard to
hear) I see, once again, the problem that it has
Hi, Pekka (but not only Pekka),
If I understood Margaret last night, she was at least somewhat
comfortable with a hard split between area management and technical
review, so I'd like to at least ask one question...
In discussions with John Klensin, I (and I think we) both assumed that
the
At 11:07 04/08/2005, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
I doubt that this is going to solve anything. All basic project management
techniques assume that a project has a deadline and that the people working
We do have deadlines: charters, and external customers (implementors,
other SDOs).
I
I haven't counted the number of times were deadlines were missed this
week alone with no consequences.
For example, in a WG I attended this morning, the chair asked a person
about a document he promised to write. The person answered that he'd do
this in the next month. The chair replied that
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
This is another result of doing work with volunteers. If somebody is
interested in a topic but not in another, then there is nothing that
can stop him from working on the first topic, even if it might be
beneficial for overall progress to finish the
on 2005-08-04 10:05 Henning Schulzrinne said the following:
I would never suggest adopting a 4-year project schedule, but would
suggest a number of simple project management techniques and goals:
...
- Have tools that remind the working group of upcoming deadlines,
i.e., drafts that are
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: None
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Ietf Digest, Vol 16, Issue 17
Send Ietf mailing list submissions to
ietf@ietf.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, John C Klensin wrote:
(2) Several comments, during and after the discussion and most
precisely framed by Spencer Dawkins, that I may have made an
incorrect assumption about transition. The text more or less
assumes that the review panel membership would be new
and the IESG
I think the concept of separating the responsibility for final document
review and approval from the responsibility for chartering and managing
working workings.
Yes, there are some tricky details. But it looks like they are solvable
and the approach leads to improvement in several regards.
Speaking only for myself, and at the slogan level,
I'm troubled with the assumption that the review panel rejection is
A Big Deal. This has unstated assumptions on what kind of people
you'd expect to be on the review panel and/or what kind of review is
expected.
As an occasional reviewer
the I-D tracker, although it's not immediately obvious to me exactly what
kind of integration with the I-D tracker would be beneficial here. Could
you expand on this?
Not much linkage: any I-D automatically has an issue tracker associated
with it and there is a link from the I-D tracker to
I think it would be useful to analyze the nature of current DISCUSS
comments before drawing conclusions from the 70% figure. They apparently
range from simple typos (expand acronyms) to differences of opinion
(WG chose X, AD prefers Y; both X and Y are at least plausible) to
adding various
- Provide an issue tracker for -01+ drafts, integrated with the I-D
tracker.
I'm considering as part of the tools work setting up an issue
tracker for each WG as part of the WG status page. It will be
closely integrated with the WG mailing list.
That would be excellent. When
I think it would be useful to analyze the nature of current DISCUSS
comments before drawing conclusions from the 70% figure. They
apparently range from simple typos (expand acronyms) to
differences of opinion (WG chose X, AD prefers Y; both X and Y are
at least plausible) to adding various
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
My point is that each of these DISCUSSes kept a specification from
being approved for at least one two-week telechat cycle. I believe,
in the absence of data, that adding delays to a project makes it
easier to stretch out other delays, so two weeks is
on 2005-08-04 14:59 Henning Schulzrinne said the following:
the I-D tracker, although it's not immediately obvious to me exactly what
kind of integration with the I-D tracker would be beneficial here. Could
you expand on this?
Not much linkage: any I-D automatically has an issue tracker
Two observations, just my opinion...
--On Thursday, August 04, 2005 15:18 +0200 Spencer Dawkins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it would be useful to analyze the nature of current
DISCUSS comments before drawing conclusions from the 70%
figure. They apparently range from simple typos
Hi, Pekka,
I rarely if ever argue with you about protocol stuff, because you're
pretty good at protocols, and our process IS a protocol, but I do see
returned to clear DISCUSS items on the IESG telechat agendas. So, I
bet you're right, but there is running code that we actually DO end up
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
I rarely if ever argue with you about protocol stuff, because you're pretty
good at protocols, and our process IS a protocol, but I do see returned to
clear DISCUSS items on the IESG telechat agendas. So, I bet you're right,
but there is running code
(note is long - summary: Review panel SHOULD, in my opinion, be able to
send back documents to WG without it being a Big Deal. At least once.)
--On 4. august 2005 09:08 -0400 Henning Schulzrinne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I think it would be useful to analyze the nature of current DISCUSS
Dear Harald,
I agree, with one edit - s/to WG/to WG early in the process/.
(note is long - summary: Review panel SHOULD, in my opinion, be able
to send back documents to WG without it being a Big Deal. At least
once.)
The part where I stroke out about us continuing to think that
documents
Dear Scott,
could we phrase it differently?
I submit that we could qualify (along with your own wording) complex
changes as bringing a revolution.
In that case the problem becomes simpler: to try to tink if there is a way
to make the revolution a simple evolution.
I will take an example. The
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Spencer Dawkins writes:
Hi, Pekka,
I rarely if ever argue with you about protocol stuff, because you're
pretty good at protocols, and our process IS a protocol, but I do see
returned to clear DISCUSS items on the IESG telechat agendas. So, I
bet you're right, but
Re the plenary thread now on user experience, and the apparently related
topic of diagnostics, folks might be interested in some RD done in
Internet2 on end-to-end diagnostics:
http://middleware.internet2.edu/e2ed/
NSF funded this work because of the observation that many of the programs
Hi,
in John's formulation, the process work of the general area withers
away - or at least moves to a different corner of the world.
so what happens to the general area?
one suggestion is to axe it.
my suggestion would be for that role to be staffed by a generalist who
is comfortable with
This conjecture was disturbing, but calling it a feature was
even more disturbing. After a bit of pondering, and
wondering what different groups in the IETF might mean by
complex, my first thought was that the IETF has never, ever
solved one. For example, we do QoS in small pieces that
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Keith Moore
or for that matter _Atlas Shrugged_? (not that I agree with Rand on
everything, but she had this one pegged)
I beg to differ, the Middle ages demonstrated amply that the vast
majority of the populace are not going
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'A Method for Generating Link Scoped IPv6 Multicast Addresses '
draft-ietf-ipv6-link-scoped-mcast-09.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the IP Version 6 Working Group Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Margaret
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'MIME Type Registration for MPEG-4 '
draft-lim-mpeg4-mime-03.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.
The IESG contact person is Allison Mankin.
A URL of this
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 4108
Title: Using Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
to Protect Firmware Packages
Author(s): R. Housley
Status: Standards Track
Date: August 2005
40 matches
Mail list logo
