Hi John,
At 07:24 28-06-10, John C Klensin wrote:
Let's turn this around. One of the attractions of the
Before I delve into this, I'll remind the working group that Alexey
asked a fundamental question (see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00509.html )
"pre-evaluation" model as it has evolved is independent of the
agreement with the IESG. As an editor, I have a list of changes
the WG wants me to make (or at least that someone in the WG has
proposed to make) and know that I can focus my editing time in
those areas, rather than expecting to go back and forth
(potentially endlessly) about what is supposed to be done.
In the (experimental) "pre-evaluation" model, the WG identifies a
list issues before the actual document is edited. Using Tony's
words, this forces people to think. It also keeps controversies in
check. The editor of the document gets an idea of what changes are
being requested and the editing effort is focused on that. This
model has not been fully tested though.
I'll use the two current pre-evaluation I-Ds as examples. In
draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation-05, there are five items
listed as non-changes. We have a rough idea of the outcome for the
three errata. There was five issues listed in Appendix B as
editorial
changes. draft-ietf-yam-rfc5322bis-msgfmt-pre-evaluation-00 lists
four errata, three of them about ABNF and the fourth is an editorial
change. The WG can open the actual documents and tell the editor
what is supposed to be done. The documents would take less WG time
and the editors might only have to submit one or two I-Ds.
If we are now moving in the direction of "no full standards
under the current rules" then the pre-eval documents need to be
reviewed --both within the WG and potentially with the IESG as
to what standing they have. In particular, if things change to
new definitions of maturity levels (independent of how many of
them there are), the assumptions under which the pre-eval
documents were constructed become more or less irrelevant. If
those documents are going to continue to have value under those
circumstances, we would presumably need to go back and rethink
them and what they mean.
In a "no full standards" scenario, the pre-evaluation documents would
have to be rewritten. We could resort to amnesia and keep the
current "rules". But it won't have any standing on a Last Call. The
work would also have to be completed within the same IESG cycle. And
we also have to consider whether it is worth doing when maturity
levels no longer have the same meaning.
While I'm happy to have the actual discussion in Maastricht, is
it reasonable to suggest that we simply stop substantive work
until the issue is resolved? One way to interpret the Housley
draft (and I can't tell whether it has support from within the
IESG or not), is that we are wasting our time. If so...
This effort was started in Dublin in July 2008. There was
discussions within the WG and at the plenary at Hiroshima in November
2009 about the effort. Each time a non-WG process issue is sorted
out, another one comes along. The uncertainty is detrimental to the WG work.
The IESG is well aware of the work being carried out by this WG. I
don't know whether draft-housley-two-maturity-levels will gain
consensus. If it represents the view of the IESG, I'll take it as
"don't bother doing this work". The documents are "good enough".
All this shouldn't have occurred after two years of effort as this WG
has been making some progress. A charter is a contract between the
IETF and the working group which is committing to meet explicit
milestones and delivering specific "products". It would be
unreasonable of me to ask the reviewers and editors of the documents
to carry substantive work if the contract is revoked in such a
manner. I mentioned the facts. I'll leave it to the WG to determine
whether it is a waste of time or not.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
