On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.comwrote:
On 05/17/2013 04:36 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On May 17, 2013, at 6:37 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 5/17/2013 7:01 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
But WGs should be able to periodically summarize what they're
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.comwrote:
On 05/17/2013 10:21 PM, Andy Bierman wrote:
I notice that nowhere on this list is any mention of the charter
milestones
or dates. Is the Foo Proto draft due in 14 months or is it 14 months
behind
schedule? If
The problem is that WG participants SHOULD follow/update their
milestones and take responsibility to progress work to thoes goals
direction. The Chair SHOULD follow the WG requests, or the Chair
SHOULD encourage discussing the milestones. I already requested before
that all WGs SHOULD discuss
Instead of a WG progress report, what I had in mind was a separate report for
each work item. The report should briefly describe
I agree with you totally, that work-item-report SHOULD be copied to AD
and WG. That report is needed mostly when the work does not target its
milestone, requesting
I already requested before that all WGs SHOULD
discuss their milestones and update it in each
meeting or on the list.
No-one cares what you requested.
Didn't you get banned from the MANET list for lack of useful content?
Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood
On May 16, 2013, at 11:55 PM, Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
I think Dave's idea is worth looking at, but have one comment:
On 05/16/2013 09:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
There is a problem, though, that this will increase the load on ADs.
There is that. But don't forget
On May 17, 2013, at 12:58 AM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
On 05/16/2013 04:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
The time for asking whether the group has considered making this field fixed
length instead of variable, or whether RFC 2119 language is used in an
appropriate way, or
On May 17, 2013, at 1:38 AM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
On May 16, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
There is a problem, though, that this will increase the load on ADs. Other
concerns raised during IETF LC may lead to revised I-Ds, which the ADs will
On 05/17/2013 10:18 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On May 16, 2013, at 11:55 PM, Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie
wrote:
I think Dave's idea is worth looking at, but have one comment:
On 05/16/2013 09:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
There is a problem, though, that this will increase the load
Dave, Ralph,
Jari has expressed the goal of having AD concerns be raised more publicly.
Moving AD review and comment to the IETF Last Call venue nicely accomplishes
this, too.
I just posted elsewhere a suggestion to move this review even earlier, to WG
last call. Accomplishes most of
On 05/17/2013 05:31 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On May 17, 2013, at 12:58 AM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
On 05/16/2013 04:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
The time for asking whether the group has considered making this field fixed
length instead of variable, or whether RFC 2119 language is
On 05/17/2013 05:32 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On May 17, 2013, at 1:38 AM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
On May 16, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
There is a problem, though, that this will increase the load on ADs. Other
concerns raised during IETF LC may lead to
On 5/17/2013 7:01 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
But WGs should be able to periodically summarize what they're doing -
what problem they're trying to solve, what approach they're taking, what
technologies they're using, what major decisions they've made, what the
current sticking points seem to be, what
Dave,
On 5/17/13 11:37 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 5/17/2013 7:01 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
But WGs should be able to periodically summarize what they're doing -
what problem they're trying to solve, what approach they're taking, what
technologies they're using, what major decisions they've made,
On May 17, 2013, at 6:37 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 5/17/2013 7:01 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
But WGs should be able to periodically summarize what they're doing -
what problem they're trying to solve, what approach they're taking, what
technologies they're using, what major
On 05/17/2013 04:36 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On May 17, 2013, at 6:37 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 5/17/2013 7:01 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
But WGs should be able to periodically summarize what they're doing -
what problem they're trying to solve, what approach they're taking, what
On 05/17/2013 10:21 PM, Andy Bierman wrote:
I notice that nowhere on this list is any mention of the charter
milestones
or dates. Is the Foo Proto draft due in 14 months or is it 14 months
behind
schedule? If the latter, why isn't the Foo WG meeting at the IETF?
I don't think milestones
On 05/17/2013 10:37 PM, Andy Bierman wrote:
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Keith Moore
mo...@network-heretics.com mailto:mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
I don't think milestones will be useful unless and until:
(a) they're defined in terms of not only concrete but also
On May 15, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Adrian Farrel adrian at olddog.co.uk wrote:
The claim (or one of the claims) is that some ADs may place Discusses that
are
intended to raise a discussion with the authors/WG that could equally have
been
raised with a Comment or through direct email. This, it is
On 2013-05-16 14:38, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
Discussions should have a time limit (can be one week),
I totally disagree, DISCUSSES are our friends, they need to be
discussed until we have rough consensus; it seems to be a
manifestly bad idea to draw a deadline after seven days, if
someone
Please distinguish between (1) making the system efficient and (2) making
individual documents go through it quickly. If you put time limits on
parts of the process, you're not allowing them to function correctly.
Putting arbitrary time limits on will hurry things up but it will not
produce
Hi Loa,
I agree with you discussions are our friend. I was focusing on
processing time, not document quality. No dought if you stay longer
time you will get better quality, but what about progress. So I mean
call for discussions is for a time limit, as if no discussion happends
then the call
On 5/16/13, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
Please distinguish between (1) making the system efficient and (2) making
individual documents go through it quickly. If you put time limits on
parts of the process, you're not allowing them to function correctly.
Putting arbitrary time
Putting arbitrary time limits on will hurry things up but it will not
produce higher quality results.
Ok, so do you agree, that if who holds the work, at least should tell
us HOW long he is holding or what is the time PLAN. Do you think
working without plan is efficient and gives good
On 5/15/2013 1:30 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Suppose the AD raised her concern by writing a Comment or sending an email and
balloting No Objection. That would mean that the I-D would be approved for
publication.
At this point either:
- the discussion goes on, but the document becomes an RFC
notice the I-D sneaking through).
Still thinking,
Adrian
-Original Message-
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:d...@dcrocker.net]
Sent: 16 May 2013 17:23
To: adr...@olddog.co.uk
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Is this an elephant? [Was: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF
process]
On 5/15/2013
On 5/16/2013 9:40 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
That's a good question Dave.
The community might like to comment.
On the whole, I am told that if an AD weighs in with her comments during working
group last call, her fearsome personality may overwhelm some of the WG
participants and she may dominate
On May 16, 2013, at 1:01 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
http://dcrocker.net/#gender
That's what I do. It gets a bit awkward with verb agreement and constructs
like themself, which elicits the dreaded red snake underline of doom. But I
find it more comfortable than just
Dave Crocker wrote:
And of course, the reality is that we allow bad specs out the door all
the time; we just allow fewer of them than many/most other standards
bodies...
But different to (at least some) other standards bodies, we lack an
official means to publish defect reports (aka
On Thursday, May 16, 2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
By the time the IESG schedules the vote, ADs need to already have educated
themselves about the document.
Oh, so you're suggesting adding another phase to the process: IESG
education. OK.
So here's a simple proposal that pays attention to AD
On 5/16/13 10:01 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 5/16/2013 9:40 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
That's a good question Dave.
The community might like to comment.
On the whole, I am told that if an AD weighs in with her comments
during working
group last call, her fearsome personality may overwhelm some
On May 16, 2013, at 9:08 PM, Scott Brim
scott.b...@gmail.commailto:scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
By the time the IESG schedules the vote, ADs need to already have educated
themselves about the document.
Oh, so you're suggesting adding another phase
I think Dave's idea is worth looking at, but have one comment:
On 05/16/2013 09:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
There is a problem, though, that this will increase the load on ADs.
There is that. But don't forget that ADs mostly read everything
in IESG review and often comment. Even leaving aside
On May 16, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
On the whole, I am told that if an AD weighs in with her comments during
working
group last call, her fearsome personality may overwhelm some of the WG
participants and she may dominate the WG consensus.
There may be
Dave,
On 17/05/2013 04:23, Dave Crocker wrote:
...
The problem here is that basic reviewing is being done by the ADs too
late in the process.
You are making a lot of assumptions in that sentence. At least these:
1. Basic reviewing means
2. At some stage before approval, ADs should
On May 16, 2013, at 5:00 PM 5/16/13, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
On May 16, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
On the whole, I am told that if an AD weighs in with her comments during
working
group last call, her fearsome personality may overwhelm
On 05/16/2013 04:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
The time for asking whether the group has considered making this field
fixed length instead of variable, or whether RFC 2119 language is used
in an appropriate way, or whether the protocol is extensible enough is
at IETF last call.
Actually the time
Dave - I hope you'll indulge my selective quoting as I have a couple of
specific points to address. My apologies if I end up quoting you out of
context...
On May 16, 2013, at 12:23 PM 5/16/13, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
[...]
So here's a simple proposal that pays attention to
On May 16, 2013, at 5:58 PM 5/16/13, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com
wrote:
On 05/16/2013 04:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
The time for asking whether the group has considered making this field fixed
length instead of variable, or whether RFC 2119 language is used in an
appropriate way,
On 5/16/13 2:58 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
On 05/16/2013 04:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
The time for asking whether the group has considered making this
field fixed length instead of variable, or whether RFC 2119 language
is used in an appropriate way, or whether the protocol is extensible
enough is
On 5/16/13 4:07 PM, Ralph Droms wrote:
On May 16, 2013, at 5:58 PM 5/16/13, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com
wrote:
On 05/16/2013 04:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
The time for asking whether the group has considered making this field
fixed length instead of variable, or whether RFC 2119
On May 16, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
There is a problem, though, that this will increase the load on ADs. Other
concerns raised during IETF LC may lead to revised I-Ds, which the ADs will
need to re-read (or at least look at the diff). I don't know how
On 05/16/2013 06:09 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
Fix that problem, and most of the conflicts between IESG and WGs that
surround DISCUSS votes will go away.
Maybe but I wouldn't take that as an article of faith. You're going to
get pressure for more changes when fresh eyes review something.
Yeah,
The claim (or one of the claims) is that some ADs may place Discusses that are
intended to raise a discussion with the authors/WG that could equally have been
raised with a Comment or through direct email. This, it is claimed, may
unnecessarily delay the document from completing the publication
On May 15, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
I suggest that the former is a bad result. Not that the authors/WG will ignore
the discussion, but if they disagree on something the AD considers very
important, the authors/WG have no incentive to participate in the
45 matches
Mail list logo
