Hi Rainer, Welcome back. I hope the vacation with family was relaxing and fun.
I understand your frustration. Let me be clear however, that requiring reviews during WGLC is certainly not a new requirement; reviews during WGLC have ALWAYS been a requirement of work being submitted to the IESG for advancement. Working group chairs got lax for a while, and submitted documents that were obviously not ready for advancement. The IESG now requires better reviews by the WG before accepting documents for advancement. If the WG provides the reviews, I believe we stand a very good chance of finally getting these through the process to RFCs. David Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: Rainer Gerhards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 3:10 AM > To: David Harrington; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Syslog] WGLC and document advancement > > WG, > > still no WGLC comments or any further responses... > > Let me share my deep frustration with you. I have cautioned > against low > participation levels last year when the question was if the > WG should be > concluded or continue to work. Then, the overall opinion was > that there > were sufficient interest in the topic. With that on my mind, I put > another round of effort into syslog-protocol. I am now working on this > for several years. I spent considerable work on it. Each time when it > looked close to finish, either some radical new thoughts came > in (which > is fine), an old issue was re-itereated (which I do not consider to be > OK) or some other unexpected show-stopper showed up. This time, it is > the insufficient review. I am thoroughly disappointed and now need to > think that all the time I put into this effort is wasted. > This is quite > regrettable. > > However, I do not intend to spent any more time on it without the > *solid* indication that the work can be completed and published. As > such, I will NOT make any further edits at this time and I will also > hold my planned review of other WG documents. I will also refrain from > commenting on any technical issues. Probably the best option at this > stage would be to recommend to the IESG to finally conclude the WG. > > Thanks, > Rainer > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Rainer Gerhards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2006 2:34 AM > > To: David Harrington; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: [Syslog] WGLC and document advancement > > > > David, > > > > Thanks for the reminder. > > > > I have read -transport-tls several times, only been unable to have a > > close look at the latest increment. To my understanding, > > there were only > > minor changes to the document, so I am still happy with it. > > > > I am concerned about the lack of feedback to my response to your > > concerns on the "enc" SD-ID and transparency of MSG and > > STRUCTURED-DATA > > in -protocol. I am hesitant to do any edits until there has been any > > final discussion of these issues (reminder: I am most > probably able to > > edit starting September, 18th). > > > > I have roughly reviewed -transport-tls (due to my time > > constraints). All > > in all, it looks good enough to me. My main concerns have > already been > > addressed by adding the version number. I think, however, this point > > needs some more discussion. > > > > There are many other points in -tls that could be discussed. > > HOWEVER, I > > think discussing any of them now would make us miss our > > milestone. What > > is there is well enough. It could be better. Let's do that at later > > stage (version field permits this). > > > > We have been discussing syslog-protocol and -tls (and the > work leading > > to it) for 3 or 4 years now, often going in circles. Participation > > levels have varied greatly. My personal opinion is that > many folks are > > finally bored with going ever and ever over the same > arguments. But I > > may be wrong. Getting some work done would definitely help us. > > > > We should not aim for the perfect. In an ideal world, we > > would have only > > ideal solutions. But we do not life in an ideal world. If NASA feels > > strong enough to launch a shuttle with an imperfect fuel > > cell, we should > > probably feel strong enough in putting some non-ideal but obviously > > useful work to completion. So please comment on the drafts and open > > issues. > > > > Rainer > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: David Harrington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 1:23 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: [Syslog] WGLC and document advancement > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > There are good things and bad things that come with > having a new WG > > > co-chair. > > > I think I have helped the WG by driving the completion of > > milestones. > > > That's the good part. > > > The bad part is I bring my own opinions of what adequate > > review means. > > > > > > The IETF has started using a new process, called document > > shepherding, > > > for the advancement of documents to the standards-track. > The chairs > > > are given much more responsibility and authority to decide whether > > > documents are ready for advancement. They are expected to write up > > > their analyses of WG issues, consensus, and degree of > review of the > > > documents being submitted, and these analyses will be reviewed at > > > every step of the process after this point, as the members > > of the IESG > > > try to determine whether the document really is ready for > advancment > > > to standards-track. You can see the details they expect us > > to provide > > > by reading draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-07 > > (which has been > > > expanded quite a bit from the -05- draft used during your earlier > > > WGLCs). > > > > > > I have shepherded a number of documents through the process, and I > > > know how difficult it can be to get documents through the > > process, and > > > how much the documents can be delayed during the > standards-approval > > > process if they are not really ready for submission to > that process. > > > > > > I am concerned that the documents have not gotten adequate review > > > during WGLC. There have been very few comments made, and I > > would like > > > to see more reviews done by the members of the WG for > each of these > > > documents. > > > > > > If you have problems with the documents, speak up now, so > the chairs > > > can be sure your concerns are recognized and have been addressed. > > > > > > If you have read the document, and found no important problems and > > > have no significant objections to the document, and belive > > it is ready > > > to be submitted to the advancement process, please send a > > note to the > > > WG saying so. > > > > > > David Harrington > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Syslog mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Syslog mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog > > > _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
