Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes

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

 



Brian,

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.

Brian, I am not suggesting that IESG has to do anything different. Let them continue to raise their DISCUSSes through the I-D tracker. It is the right tool for the job.

But note that the current version of the tracker does not raise the DISCUSS with anyone. It simply logs it.

Let us at least start by having all DISCUSSes and COMMENTS automatically forwarded to the WG chairs. These notes arrive in the tracker at pseudo-random times and it must be a very diligent chair that spots them all.

If we don't do this then they simply are not DISCUSSes. They are just post-it notes.

But regardless of this, I am concerned that the resolution of a DISCUSS is not archived anywhere. If you want to restrict the DISCUSS from reaching the WG unless the WG chair decides, then you MUST log the resolution (not just the fact of reslution) of each DISCUSS in the I-D tracker.

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).

In which case, no damage done by sending it to the WG?
A slight increase in traffic on the mailing list. So what?

And, do you assume that the WG chair is the best person to resolve these simple issues? The chair may also suffer from the same simple misconception resulting in the wrong thing happening to the I-D.

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.

Well, assuming that the DISCUSS arrives at the WG chair as an email, this might be a reasonable compromise. But it seems like make-work to me.

Harald said...

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.

Hmmm. Would this work be more difficult because of the very large flood of email responses that would be generated? (I don't think this would happen with any of the WGs I follow!)

Or is there some other reason? It can't be a matter of politics or fear of being out-spoken because the DISCUSS is public domain anyway.

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.

I completely disagree! The WG needs to know that it is completing last call on I-Ds that are not making it through review smoothly. How else will the WG improve its output?

Looking at this particular I-D, the I-D tracker seems to be being used for conversations between IESG members. A bit odd, perhaps?

Adrian



_______________________________________________

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]