Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends (Re: Measuring IETF and IESG trends)

--On Thursday, 26 June, 2008 09:41 +1200 Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >... > And of course, individual ADs > have to think carefully whether a given issue is or is not > worthy of a DISCUSS, and sometimes they get it wrong. But > that will always be true, however we tune the proc

Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends (Re: Measuring IETFand IESG trends)

And if we see fluctuation in these delays, and fluctuation in the amount of active intervention by the ADs, it does not follow that the IESG is to blame. Maybe there are external factors, maybe there are WGs that are forgetting the IETF's mission, maybe our technology is getting harder and more co

Re: SHOULD vs MUST

fwiw - I have, for many SIPits (a rather large interop event for SIP implementations) worked to get the people writing code from these documents to understand that MUST means MUST and SHOULD means MUST ... (very long pause)... unless you _really_ know that not following the SHOULD won't re

Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends (Re: Measuring IETF and IESG trends)

On 2008-06-26 06:30, Jari Arkko wrote: > Lakshminath, > > Better understanding of the type of behaviors in this space would > certainly be useful. And I don't want to disagree with your assessment > of the behaviors; many of them sound like something that appears in > practice. In particular, the

Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends (Re: Measuring IETF and IESG trends)

Lakshminath, Better understanding of the type of behaviors in this space would certainly be useful. And I don't want to disagree with your assessment of the behaviors; many of them sound like something that appears in practice. In particular, the shepherds are far less involved in the Discuss

Re: SHOULD vs MUST

On Jun 25, 2008, at 7:46 AM, Fred Baker wrote: I was about to write something like that to Scott; thanks for making it unnecessary. My additional comment is that if there is some case I can think of that leads me to say "should", there might also be another that I didn't think of. Asking

Re: SHOULD vs MUST

On 6/25/08 1:37 PM, John C Klensin allegedly wrote: My concern is about anything that might get turned into another rule while various of us are trying to concentrate on technical work and not, e.g., watching every entry in the IESG's tracker logs. Indeed. More generally, thinking carefully a

Re: SHOULD vs MUST

--On Wednesday, 25 June, 2008 13:02 -0400 Scott Brim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/25/08 8:24 AM, John C Klensin allegedly wrote: >> >> --On Wednesday, 25 June, 2008 07:59 -0400 Scott Brim >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> ... and draft authors should include explanations in their >>> draft

RE: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends (Re: Measuring IETFand IESG trends)

I think that this is a very good partial summary of the trends, and I am also concerned about these. My personal opinion only: I think that we need stronger guidelines on what is a valid discuss, and what is not. We might need some mechanism for the WG or the IETF or the IAB to override a DISCUSS

Re: SHOULD vs MUST

On 6/25/08 8:24 AM, John C Klensin allegedly wrote: --On Wednesday, 25 June, 2008 07:59 -0400 Scott Brim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... and draft authors should include explanations in their drafts of the reasons an implementor might legitimately have for not implementing the "should". For exa

Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends (Re: Measuring IETF and IESG trends)

On 6/25/08 11:44 AM, "Lakshminath Dondeti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would like to hear others' opinions (I was going to put together a > draft with some ideas on how we might define these roles, but I want to > hear others' thoughts before I do that) on this topic. I think your points are va

Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends (Re: Measuring IETF and IESG trends)

Hi all, I am concerned by the following trends: * Number of outstanding Discusses is growing. (Thanks to Jari's data) * The extent of text changes as part of Discuss Resolution is increasing (I have only anecdotal evidence on this; perhaps others have statistics). * In some cases, members of

Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis

>In the case of this draft, have the owners of the identifiers >been contacted by the author, and do they agree to this use? Perhaps you might want to compare the draft with RFC 2821, which was published over seven years ago, and then reconsider the question. Regards, John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: Measuring IETF and IESG trends (Was: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis)

Dear Jari; On Jun 25, 2008, at 7:37 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: Bernard, Russ, I changed the subject line, I think the thread has continued long enough :-) Indeed, I collect a set of measurements. These are based on pulling information from the tracker and the documents. The reason for setti

Re: SHOULD vs MUST

I was about to write something like that to Scott; thanks for making it unnecessary. My additional comment is that if there is some case I can think of that leads me to say "should", there might also be another that I didn't think of. Asking me to detail them all up front is IMHO asking t

Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis

Use of any identifier outside the example space may cause real harm to the owner, where that harm may range from serious harm (technical and/or financial) to mild embarrassment. If anyone wants to use an identifier outside the example space, then to protect both the owner of the identifier and

Re: SHOULD vs MUST

--On Wednesday, 25 June, 2008 07:59 -0400 Scott Brim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/25/08 5:37 AM, Fred Baker allegedly wrote: >> >> On Jun 25, 2008, at 5:28 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote: >> A SHOULD X unless Y essentially means "SHOULD (X or Y)" >>> >>> I'd read it as "do X, but if you

Re: SHOULD vs MUST

On 6/25/08 5:37 AM, Fred Baker allegedly wrote: On Jun 25, 2008, at 5:28 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote: A SHOULD X unless Y essentially means "SHOULD (X or Y)" I'd read it as "do X, but if you have a very good excuse not doing X might do. One known very good excuse is Y." That is more or less

Measuring IETF and IESG trends (Was: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis)

Bernard, Russ, I changed the subject line, I think the thread has continued long enough :-) Indeed, I collect a set of measurements. These are based on pulling information from the tracker and the documents. The reason for setting this up was to try to better understand what is happening in t

Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis

Stewart Bryant wrote: At least three ADs believe that the examples should be changed I agree with them. Use of any identifier outside the example space may cause real harm to the owner, where that harm may range from serious harm (technical and/or financial) to mild embarrassment. If any

Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis

At least three ADs believe that the examples should be changed I agree with them. Use of any identifier outside the example space may cause real harm to the owner, where that harm may range from serious harm (technical and/or financial) to mild embarrassment. If anyone wants to use an ide

Re: SHOULD vs MUST

On Jun 25, 2008, at 5:28 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote: A SHOULD X unless Y essentially means "SHOULD (X or Y)" I'd read it as "do X, but if you have a very good excuse not doing X might do. One known very good excuse is Y." That is more or less my definition of "should". I say something "must

Re: Operation permissions on Read-Only objects in a table

On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:17:00PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 17 lines which said: > It is a shame that the IETF does not have a "SQL extensions" Working > Group :-) > > But, seriously, you used the wrong list, this is the IETF > ma

Re: SHOULD vs MUST (was Re: Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-07)

On 21 jun 2008, at 15:31, Lawrence Conroy wrote: the SHOULD means "do this unless...", and the last phrase covers the "unless". I had read 2119 to mean that a MUST was unconditional - do this or be non-complaint. Do you believe that MUST can have an "unless" clause? Doesn't this mean that any