> --On Tuesday, August 10, 2010 00:01 -0400 Tony Hansen > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > As indicated in my previous message with notes from > > Maastricht, the ramifications of Russ Housley's "two track" > > proposal were discussed there. See the slides for a summary of > > the issues at > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/78/materials.html#wg-yam. > > > > At the end of the meeting, three questions were discussed: > > > > 1) should the YAM working group continue working at its > > current rate on its current doc set? > > 2) should the YAM working group "hit the pause button"? > > 3) should the YAM working group shut down? > > > > Absolutely no one supported the last item, #3. However, the > > room was fairly evenly split between support for both #1 and > > #2. > > > > Please respond to this message with an indication of your > > support for either #1 (working apace) or #2 (pausing), as well > > as why. > > > > If you support #2 (pausing), please also discuss how long of a > > pause you feel is appropriate and why. > I support #2 (pausing) because: I support #2 as well. > (1) The main motivation for the YAM work was advancement of an > interrelated collection of documents to Full Standard. If the > eliminate of Full Standard (collapsing its name onto Draft > Standard) eliminates the need to advance the documents in a > coordinated way, we should be making document-by-document > decisions about priorities, timing, and the tradeoff between > document revisions and errata pages. Exactly. In my own case, if there's a draft->full step, my time is best spent working on getting various documents through that step. If that step doesn't exist, my time would be much better spent working on advancing assorted proposed standards, like parameter encoding, enhanceddeliverystatuscodes, and about a bizillion sieve documents, across the proposed->full step. And if there's spare energy to do advancemtn work while we wait, might I suggest it be used to do things like coming up with interop reports for Sieve? > (2) If we are going to do revisions-in-place (Draft called Full > to Draft called Full), than many of the discussions and > assumptions that have gone into the pre-eval documents become > questionable and should be reviewed. It is not clear that > either the WG or the IESG have the energy for such a review. > I've gathered that the need to do those reviews are part of what > motivated the "two track" discussion and decision on the IESG's > part. And, if we have to go back to "present document to the > IESG and risk surprises and a game of 'gotcha, we are imposing > additional requirements at Last Call'" as in the past, it is > questionable as to whether it is worth the energy to move > forward. Agreed, although this is less of a factor for me than (1). > (3) Certainly it may be worth revising some of the documents > that are on the YAM agenda even if "Full Standard" is no longer > a reason. But that would should then be done after considering > tradeoffs with other work. And we should consider whether > similar pre-evaluation arrangements are still in order and, if > so, discuss with the IESG, de novo, whether they are willing to > work with those arrangements. Exactly. Ned _______________________________________________ yam mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
