Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes

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

 



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

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