It seems like most other SDOs use formalized issue trackers for the
equivalent of last call ("ballot") comments, making it easy to see
what has been going on. Some WG do this, but each usually picking
their own peculiar tracker.
The problem with any substantial IETF LC or WGLC comments is that
they are often multiple issues, from the trivial spelling errors to
fundamental architectural issues. It is difficult to make sure that
all have been addressed and that discussions don't become >>>>>
emails with meaningless subject lines - unintentionally making sure
that nobody beyond the authors (if you're lucky) pays attention.
Putting all comments, including DISCUSS, into a document-specific
issue tracker would be most helpful. (It would be helpful even beyond
publication of an RFC, as we have found for the SIP documents, as
they can be used to gather issues that a future "bis" effort needs to
address. From what I can tell, almost all of the non-trivial protocol
documents these days generate an draft-ietf-rfcXYZbis, after all.)
Henning
On Jan 12, 2007, at 3:54 AM, Pekka Savola wrote:
Jeff, you wrote a good note. I'll use this as an opportunity to
expand on one topic a bit:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Wednesday, January 03, 2007 10:49:33 PM +0000 Dave Crocker
<dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
C. PROCEDURAL BREAKAGE
-----------------------
> * IETF process related to document advancement was not carried
out;
> e.g., there are unresolved and substantive Last Call comments
which the
> document does not address...
IMHO, this particular situation is more than just "procedural
breakage". If a document reaches this point with outstanding last
call comments, then there is a more basic failure. Such a
document should not have reached the point where a DISCUSS is
required to keep it from progressing long enough for the comment
to be addressed.
Well, it seems rather common that IETF LC comments (especially if
not copied to ietf@xxxxxxxx list) are not responded. To reduce
delay, it also seems common that IESG telechat is scheduled as soon
as possible after IETF LC closes, and document is usually not taken
out of the agenda if comments are received during the LC. Also
sometimes the document gets approved without there being any record
(e.g., on IESG ballots) that some comments had been made but there
was no response.
Therefore it is not clear to me whether such comment was
"addressed" (I'd call this 'processed') but without public record
[e.g., editor or chair] in essence rejecting the comment (possibly
in good faith) or not received at all (maybe also in good faith,
e.g. if WG mailing list discards non-subscriber posts or the
moderator is asleep).
Maybe we should be clearer on what the expectation for processing
IETF LC comments is. Unless we do, it is not obvious how we could
evaluate whether the procedure has been carried out properly or not.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf