On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Abdussalam Baryun
abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote:
But there's no formal process for that, and I think
that's how we want it to be.
I don't want no formal in a formal organisation, usually unformal process
only happen in unformal organisations, so is IETF
On 29 Nov 2012, at 18:51, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
Hi Ed,
At 06:54 29-11-2012, Edward Lewis wrote:
Earlier in the thread I saw that someone expressed dismay that BOFs seem to
be WG's that have already been meeting in secret. I agree with that. At
the last meeting in Atlanta, I filled
On Nov 29, 2012, at 12:03 PM, SM wrote:
According to some RFC:
All relevant documents to be discussed at a session should be published
and available as Internet-Drafts at least two weeks before
a session starts.
If the above was followed there shouldn't be any draft submissions
On 11/30/2012 3:29 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
There is no formal process that involves adopting anything.
If you mean that we haven't documented a/the formal process, you are
correct. If you mean that the IETF has not moved towards rather formal
steps for explicitly adopting working group
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Melinda Shore
I'm not very clear on what problem you're trying to solve, or why it's a
problem. I've seen some stuff around working group draft adoption that
I don't like very much but am not sure that I'd identify
On 11/28/2012 7:58 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
Let's start with a basic point and work from there:
There is no formal process that involves adopting anything.
If you mean that we haven't documented a/the formal process, you are
correct. If you mean that the IETF has not moved towards rather
At 06:09 30-11-2012, George, Wes wrote:
[WEG] My original message simply notes that this is the 3rd or more
time in my recent memory that there has been a serious question
within some part of the IETF about when in a document's lifecycle
and maturity is the right time to adopt it as a WG
There is no formal process that involves adopting anything.
If you mean that we haven't documented a/the formal process, you are
correct. If you mean that the IETF has not moved towards rather formal
steps for explicitly adopting working group drafts, I disagree.
...
Today, there is
[apologies to some for duplicates]
Hi Geoff,
On 11/29/12 3:56 AM, Geoff Huston wrote:
It's nice to have reasonably well thought out ideas come in.
Which then become highly defined precepts that become incredibly resistant to
IETF change on the basis that they have been well thought out
I also support pushing back in those circumstances, but I do (or would, as
an AD) accept the minutes as a record of WG discussion. Minutes are, or at
least are supposed to be, posted to the list for discussion and informal
approval by the WG. This just means the minutes, especially about
On Wed 28/Nov/2012 16:18:05 +0100 Keith Moore wrote:
On 11/27/2012 01:00 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
This brings up a question that I have as an AD: A number of times
since I started in this position in March, documents have come to
the IESG that prompted me (or another AD) to look into the
On Nov 29, 2012, at 4:42, Eliot Lear wrote:
A simpler explanation is that the authors and editors of work are more
immersed than others, and therefore project more authority.
To me, when projecting authority one is either demonstrating a deeper
understanding of the topic than others or is
From: barryle...@gmail.com [mailto:barryle...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Barry Leiba
There is no formal process that involves adopting anything. Working
group chairs appoint document editors (this is in RFC 2418, Section
6.3). There is nothing anywhere that specifies how the first version of
If we actively *don't*
want an IETF-wide procedure here, we can even document that the process
for WG adoption of drafts is WG-specific and could document those specifics
in a WG policies wiki document maintained by the chairs.
I believe that one is the case, though others can weigh in with
On 11/29/12 10:06 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
I believe that one is the case, though others can weigh in with
opinions as well. Yes, we could change our documentation to
explicitly say that this particular decision is a management choice.
But I'll caution you against trying to do that in general:
Hi Ed,
At 06:54 29-11-2012, Edward Lewis wrote:
Earlier in the thread I saw that someone expressed dismay that BOFs
seem to be WG's that have already been meeting in secret. I agree
with that. At the last meeting in Atlanta, I filled in sessions
with BOFs and found that the ones I chose
At 08:24 29-11-2012, George, Wes wrote:
adoption), let's do that. If we actively *don't* want an IETF-wide
procedure here, we can even document that the process for WG
adoption of drafts is WG-specific and could document those specifics
in a WG policies wiki document maintained by the chairs.
I'll note that it seems possible that overspecifying process
could potentially cause more protests rather than fewer.
or good folk just walking away. there is a reason we are at the ietf
and not the itu. rule obsessed and process hidebound is probably not
the most productive use of smart
Just picking at one point...
According to some RFC:
All relevant documents to be discussed at a session should be published
and available as Internet-Drafts at least two weeks before
a session starts.
If the above was followed there shouldn't be any draft submissions
during
On 30/11/2012, at 8:14 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
I'll note that it seems possible that overspecifying process
could potentially cause more protests rather than fewer.
or good folk just walking away. there is a reason we are at the ietf
and not the itu. rule obsessed and process
On 11/29/2012 3:16 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Just picking at one point...
According to some RFC:
All relevant documents to be discussed at a session should be published
and available as Internet-Drafts at least two weeks before
a session starts.
If the above was followed there
From: barryle...@gmail.com [mailto:barryle...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Barry Leiba
we have a
million things that are unspecified and should be unspecified and left
to management choice. Trying to find all of those and explicitly say so
will be a frustrating exercise, and one that won't have
On 11/29/12 2:32 PM, George, Wes wrote:
[WEG] I'm sorry if it was unclear, but I am not saying that
*everything* must be specified, nor do I think anyone should
undertake an effort to even identify all of the things that are
currently unspecified. I'm pointing out a specific area of confusion
Hi Adrian,
At 13:16 29-11-2012, Adrian Farrel wrote:
What about drafts that not for discussion at a session? What about drafts that
have completed last call or are in IESG processing?
I did not verify the state of the drafts for above when I listed the
working groups. I listed a working
On 27/11/2012 18:00, Barry Leiba wrote:
...
So here's my question:
Does the community want us to push back on those situations? Does the
community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing
lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to the extent that the
community would want
: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 9:42 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IETF work is done on the mailing lists
I think the core issue is whether or not there's been adequate review,
and it seems to me to be appropriate to request volunteers from wg
participants to review documents before moving them
--On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 08:15 + Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
...
The list of attendees is now taken care of by the scanned blue
sheets, but the barely literate he said, she said minutes
from most WGs are pretty much useless. For people attempting
to
Hi John,
[subject line mutated to reflect topic being discussed]
At 01:25 28-11-2012, John C Klensin wrote:
This is, IMO, a consequence of our developing fancy tools and
then uncritically relying on them. A Jabber log or real-time
Etherpad may be, and probably is, a very helpful way to keep
I'm increasingly seeing a paradigm where the review happens _before_
adoption as a WG draft.
and one consequence is that the design gets done outside of the ietf
process.
randy
On Nov 28, 2012, at 1:57 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
I'm increasingly seeing a paradigm where the review happens _before_
adoption as a WG draft.
and one consequence is that the design gets done outside of the ietf
process.
+1
: Barry Leiba; IETF discussion list
Subject: Re: IETF work is done on the mailing lists
--! WARNING ! --
This message originates from outside our organisation,
either from an external partner or from the internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message
On 11/28/2012 12:15 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 27/11/2012 18:00, Barry Leiba wrote:
...
So here's my question:
Does the community want us to push back on those situations? Does the
community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing
lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings
On 11/27/2012 01:00 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
This brings up a question that I have as an AD: A number of times
since I started in this position in March, documents have come to the
IESG that prompted me (or another AD) to look into the document
history for... to find that there's basically no
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
John Leslie
I'm increasingly seeing a paradigm where the review happens
_before_ adoption as a WG draft. After adoption, there's a great lull
until the deadline for the next IETF week. There tend to be a few,
On 11/27/2012 10:00 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
We see a string of versions posted, some with significant updates to
the text, but *no* corresponding mailing list discussion. Nothing at
all.
...
When I ask the responsible AD or the document shepherd about that, the
response is that, well, no
Hi, Wes, all,
+1 to no one-size-fits-all.
A model that's worked well in a few groups I've been involved in is something
between (2) and (3), where the defined criteria is complete enough that
interoperable implementations could conceivably be produced, a slightly lower
bar; with the added
we do not have adequate guidance for either WG chairs or participants on
when it is generally appropriate to adopt a draft as a WG document.
...
It seems to me that these variants are dependent on the people in the WG,
the workload of the group, the chairs, past precedent, AD preferences, etc.
I guess that a better question is:
What are the expectations if a draft becomes an WG document?
The opinions ranges from:
a) It is something that some members of the WG consider inside the scope
of the charter.
z) This is a contract that the IESG will bless this document!
Not all
I'm increasingly seeing a paradigm where the review happens _before_
adoption as a WG draft.
and one consequence is that the design gets done outside of the ietf
process.
But this isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's nice to have reasonably
well thought out ideas come in.
The IETF has a
Hi Barry,
I thank you to open this discussion. I tried to open this discussion before
on the list but was ignored, however, seeing your input made me think that
there is importance to the subject. IMO I prefer the discussion list,
because we all integrate and we all are present in its domain. In
It seems to me that these variants are dependent on the people in the WG,
the workload of the group, the chairs, past precedent, AD preferences,
etc.
It makes it difficult on both draft editors and those seeking to follow
the
discussion for there to be such a disparity from WG to WG on when to
--On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 03:28 -0800 SM
s...@resistor.net wrote:
At 01:25 28-11-2012, John C Klensin wrote:
This is, IMO, a consequence of our developing fancy tools and
then uncritically relying on them. A Jabber log or real-time
Etherpad may be, and probably is, a very helpful
On 29/11/2012, at 2:36 AM, George, Wes wesley.geo...@twcable.com wrote:
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
John Leslie
I'm increasingly seeing a paradigm where the review happens
_before_ adoption as a WG draft. After adoption, there's a great lull
On 29/11/2012, at 3:32 AM, Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com wrote:
On 11/28/12 12:57 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
I'm increasingly seeing a paradigm where the review happens _before_
adoption as a WG draft.
and one consequence is that the design gets done outside of the ietf
process.
But this
is done on the mailing
lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to the extent that the
community would want the IESG to refuse to publish documents whose
process went as I've described above, on the basis that IETF process
was not properly followed?
I realize that this question is going
Le 2012-11-27 à 13:00, Barry Leiba a écrit :
So here's my question:
Does the community want us to push back on those situations? Does the
community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing
lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to the extent that the
community would
question:
Does the community want us to push back on those situations? Does the
community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing
lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to the extent that the
community would want the IESG to refuse to publish documents whose
process went as I've
So here's my question:
Does the community want us to push back on those situations? Does the
community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing
lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to the extent that the
community would want the IESG to refuse to publish documents whose
has broad
consensus of the working group.
So here's my question:
Does the community want us to push back on those situations? Does the
community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing
lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to the extent that the
community would want
I think the core issue is whether or not there's been adequate
review, and it seems to me to be appropriate to request volunteers
from wg participants to review documents before moving them along.
Melinda
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 07:33:29PM +, t.p. wrote:
Chair, that unless and until people speak up on the list, eg during Last
Call, then the I-D in question is going nowhere - which I find healthy.
I strongly agree with this.
If people continue not to speak up, well then perhaps it is time
that it had been
reviewed then the IESG is as derelict in its duty.
If a document in WG last call gets no visible support on the WG mailing list
then it should never head to the IESG, nor should the IESG publish to draft.
Does the
community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing
should the IESG publish to
draft.
Does the
community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing
lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to the extent that the
community would want the IESG to refuse to publish documents whose
process went as I've described above
--On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 13:00 -0500 Barry Leiba
barryle...@computer.org wrote:
...
So here's my question:
Does the community want us to push back on those situations?
Does the community believe that the real IETF work is done on
the mailing lists, and not in the face-to-face
situations? Does the
community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing
lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to the extent that the
community would want the IESG to refuse to publish documents whose
process went as I've described above, on the basis that IETF process
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 13:00 -0500 Barry Leiba
barryle...@computer.org wrote:
...
So here's my question:
Does the community want us to push back on those situations?
Does the community believe that the real IETF work is done
On 11/27/2012 10:07 AM, Marc Blanchet wrote:
Le 2012-11-27 à 13:00, Barry Leiba a écrit :
So here's my question:
Does the community want us to push back on those situations? Does the
community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing
lists, and not in the face-to-face
+1
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 13:00 -0500 Barry Leiba
barryle...@computer.org wrote:
...
So here's my question:
Does the community want us to push back on those situations?
Does the community believe that the real IETF work is done on
the mailing lists
the same paradigm.
Does the community believe that the real IETF work is done on the
mailing lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to the extent
that the community would want the IESG to refuse to publish documents
whose process went as I've described above, on the basis that IETF
to...@isi.edu wrote:
On 11/27/2012 10:07 AM, Marc Blanchet wrote:
Le 2012-11-27 à 13:00, Barry Leiba a écrit :
So here's my question:
Does the community want us to push back on those situations? Does the
community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing
lists
60 matches
Mail list logo
