Re: IESG Success Stories

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



John C Klensin wrote:

If an AD who was responsible for a WG came up with an issue about that WG's work and raised it only during or after Last Call, I'd expect either a really good explanation or a resignation. I certainly would not expect it to happen often. But, IMO, we have an IESG and, indeed, an IETF rather than a collection of different organizations addressing per-area issues precisely to increase the odds of catching serious cross-area and cross-perspective issues before things go out. Like it or not, unless the relevant WG makes an effort to get broad reviews at critical "early" points, there will always be a risk of late surprises as someone --in the community during Last Call or on the IESG-- suddenly wakes up and says "but how does this relate to XYZ".

I was obviously not clear enough on my first post because I wasn't referring
to the shepherding AD or the poor AD's who have paid no attention at all
who are then tapped to do their job. It's really the in between AD's that I
think really exasperate the wg participants -- if they've paid enough attention
to attend the wg meetings and perhaps even subscribe to the mailing list and
registered concerns, I really think they owe it to the working group to either
get them out when the working group is in active issue resolving mode, or
to... well, just live with it. Or something. Frankly it does a lot of damage to the IESG's reputation when you know that there's likely going to be trouble,
but there is nothing you can do to fend it off ahead of time because those
AD's have only given vague allusions to their non-amusement. It promotes
the vision of the unitary IESG which I think is a bad thing.

With regard to textual nit-picking and evaluation of worthiness of prose, I tend to agree with what I think you are saying. However, if a document is too badly written to permit interoperable implementations to be constructed without clarifying conversations among implementers, authors, and/or the WG, then the document is a failure and needs pushback. As with late surprises, somewhat more proactive effort on the part of WGs could prevent many of the problems we see, but...

I was using "wordsmithing" rather broadly. My probably idiosyncratic meaning
of "wordsmithing" here was "will this DISCUSS change the mechanics of the
protocol or not". If the answer is no, we're really just making the document
more ready for publication IMO. Something that does bring that possibility
is obviously a lot more serious. It's been my admittedly limited experience that
my version of "wordsmithing" is a lot more common, and the source of a lot
of delay to varying degrees of dubiousness.

      Mike

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]