Commenting on one issue from John's email from Sat 10/30/2010 4:18am
(and ignoring the issue of what John was doing up at 4am):
However, a change to the handling of documents that are
candidates for Proposed Standard is ultimately in the hands of
the IESG. In principle, they could announce
--On Thursday, 04 November, 2010 05:50 -0400 Ross Callon
rcal...@juniper.net wrote:
Commenting on one issue from John's email from Sat 10/30/2010
4:18am (and ignoring the issue of what John was doing up at
4am):
:-)
However, a change to the handling of documents that are
candidates for
I don't see proceeding by small, incremental changes to be a
problem. Indeed, I usually consider it an advantage as long as
there is reasonable confidence that the changes that are made
won't foreclose real solutions later...
This is my understanding of what is proposed.
...That risk can
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 1:17 AM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
snip
However, a change to the handling of documents that are
candidates for Proposed Standard is ultimately in the hands of
the IESG. In principle, they could announce tomorrow that any
document submitted for processing
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Hadriel Kaplan hkap...@acmepacket.com wrote:
So is your expectation that if Russ's draft gets published, the bar for PS
will suddenly drop?
If so, why do we need Russ's draft to begin with? We already have rfc2026.
Why would a new RFC which says follow
Ted Hardie ted.i...@gmail.com wrote:
When I re-write the advance mechanics draft, I will propose something
along the following lines:
1) A WG snapshot-like status achieved after agreement by the working
group and a posting by the WG chair to IETF-announce notifying the
wider
Ted,
I agree with almost everything you say, but want to focus on one
issue (inline below).
--On Friday, October 29, 2010 16:15 -0700 Ted Hardie
ted.i...@gmail.com wrote:
...
As we stare down this rathole one more time, let's at least be
certain that there is more than one rat down there,
I don't think it's resistance to changing a process that we are not following
- I think it's which part of the process we think isn't working, or which part
is IMPORTANT that isn't working.
Going from three steps of which only one step is used, to two steps of which
only one step will be
Hi Ted,
I was with your statements all the way to this:
Russ's draft tries to
do two things:
Restore the 2026 rules for Proposed as the functionally in-use bar for the
first rung.
...
What makes you say that?
I read the draft and I don't see it doing that, really. I know it says:
The
As is moderately obvious from the stream of commentary on this
thread and there companions, there is no *one* problem at
the root of all this. One way to draw this is:
Issue: Documents are too slow in achieving the first rung of the
standards process
Contributing issues:
-WG formation
Hi -
From: Ted Hardie ted.i...@gmail.com
To: IETF ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:15 PM
Subject: No single problem... (was Re: what is the problem bis)
...
As is moderately obvious from the stream of commentary on this
thread and there companions, there is no *one* problem
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:15 PM
Subject: No single problem... (was Re: what is the problem bis)
...
As is moderately obvious from the stream of commentary on this
thread and there companions, there is no *one* problem at
the root of all this. One way to draw this is:
...
I wonder
On 10/29/10 5:24 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
So why is there so much resistance to changing a process that we are not
following?
I think there's a sentimental attachment to it. That said,
I suppose if I were in your position I'd be asking myself
why I'm still whacking away at the same
Consensus can be achieved in two ways
The first is that everyone understands the issues in the same way and are
agreed on a common approach.
The second is that people would prefer not to face unfortunate facts and so
they agree to ignore them and get the squeaky wheels to shut up.
Now we could
14 matches
Mail list logo
