The I-D tracker provides a handy button for the DISCUSSing AD
to forward the DISCUSS to parties outside the IESG - normally
by default it's the WG Chairs. I'm not convinced personally
that sending the raw DISCUSS to the whole WG is the correct answer.
Sometimes it can be quickly resolved (for example if it's a technical
typo, or a simple misconception by the discussing AD). Other times,
it definitely does need WG discussion. I think it's best to leave
this in the hands of the WG chairs to decide case-by-case.
Brian
On 2007-01-08 08:08, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Agreement, but niggles....
As Spencer has noted, a DISCUSS often passes through several iterations
from the time a concern is raised to the time it's clear what has to be
discussed with the WG. I think it would make the IESG's work more
difficult if every iteration of such DISCUSSes were copied to the WG.
If formulated as a notification at a convenient place in the procedure,
for instance "1 day after a telechat, the current status of all ballots
discussed that still have DISCUSSes get copied to the WG", I think it
would be more useful than "the WG gets copies of every iteration".
As a completely random example, draft-ietf-ipv6-over-ppp-v2-02 currently
has 2 DISCUSSes. The tracker log shows 4 entered DISCUSSes (some
revisions) and 6 COMMENTs - 10 mails to the WG mailing list seems
excessive, while 1 mail seems more likely to be seen as useful.
Harald
--On 7. januar 2007 11:17 +0100 Simon Josefsson <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
By the way, would it be possible for all DISCUSSes and COMMENTs for
I-Ds originated by a working group to be *automatically* copied to the
mailing list of the working group? The reasons are:
- the WG chairs, editors, and interested parties should
not have to monitor the I-D tracker to spot them
- there is otherwise no automatic archiving of the
follow-up discussions
- it can often be hard to tell from the record
how/if/why a DISCUSS was cleared (the entries in
the I-D tracker do not usually show this information)
- the WG has an obvious interest in the follow-up
discussions
- if the discussions result in changes to the I-D the
WG really needs to be kept in the loop
I agree, something along those steps seems quite useful. My
experience is that not all of the people who have an interest in a
document reads and thinks about DISCUSS/COMMENT's. In some cases, I
recall that COMMENTs were not even forwarded to me as document author,
I had to find them in the I-D tracker myself. I think this has
changed now, but doing what you suggest would go even further to make
sure that the IESG comments are widely seen and thought about.
/Simon
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf