--On Thursday, July 07, 2011 11:09 -0400 Barry Leiba <[email protected]> wrote:
>> During an off-list conversation, there was a comment about >> going back to the basics to side-step issues that the WG >> cannot solve. The questions that came up are as follows: >> >> (i) What problems are the WG attempting to solve? >> >> (ii) Does it have the commitment to do the work? >> >> (iii) Can the work be completed within the defined period? > > I think it's particularly important to do 4409, 5321, and > 5322. We need to do 5321 and 5322 in order to finally > obsolete 821 and 822, and I think 4409 needs to be at the same > level as 5321. I'm ambivalent about spending the time to do > the others -- I'm not sure how much they buy us. I note that we tried to process 4409 and that the result was requests for a number of clean-up requests about the nature of the spec, not just the document, and that went beyond what had been agreed on in our pre-evaluation phase. See Dave Crocker's comments about YAM, DRUMS, and clean-up efforts. >From my point of view, whether 5321bis and 5322bis can be completely and processed still depends on the question around which YAM was organized, i.e., whether both the WG and IESG can exercise restraint about "clean up" and "wouldn't it be nice" changes as well as actual protocol modifications. To me, 4409bis is an interesting test case: if we cannot process that relatively short and uncontroversial spec without significant effort, there are real questions about whether taking on the much longer, more complex, and more controversial 5321bis is really the best use of the time of the people who would have to be involved. And, while 5322bis almost certainly involves less work than 5321bis, I know what Pete has to do with his IETF-related time these days and I'm absolutely certain his AD responsibilities should be higher priority. And, of course, that leaves aside the question of the motivation for doing a lightweight "advance the document so we can finally and definitively retire 821 and 822" update if the "two maturity level" discussion eliminates the problem. > I think I look at handling the other documents in the same > sense that I look at the efforts to find all the RFC that > might maybe possibly kinda-oughta be moved to Historic, and > spinning around on them: there are better things to do with > our time. My opinion as to whether 5321bis and 5322bis themselves fall above or below that line depends on the amount of aggravation needed to move them forward. best, john _______________________________________________ yam mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
