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 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
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:
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
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,
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
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 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
24 matches
Mail list logo
