Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings

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

 



Hi, Ned,


I don't actually mind a two-week cutoff (it's in 2418). The relevant text in
2418 says

7.1. Session documents

   All relevant documents to be discussed at a session should be
   published and available as Internet-Drafts at least two weeks before
   a session starts.  Any document which does not meet this publication
   deadline can only be discussed in a working group session with the
   specific approval of the working group chair(s).  Since it is
   important that working group members have adequate time to review all
   documents, granting such an exception should only be done under
   unusual conditions.  The final session agenda should be posted to the
   working group mailing list at least two weeks before the session and
   sent at that time to agenda@xxxxxxxx for publication on the IETF web
   site.

Funny, I myself don't see anything in here at all about an I-D cutoff. What I

Agreed.

do see is a fairly reasonable rule (I think two weeks is a bit too long, but that's a quibble) about having stuff available for review sufficiently early.

Agreed with "fairly reasonable".

The I-D cutoff is at best a clumsy attempt to enforce this rule mechanically.

I'm sure.

So I don't know where the "must have AD approval for exceptions" thing came
from, unless it's a misplaced need to have ADs approve everything.

You're confusing a rule with a procedure which has as one purpose to try and
enforce that rule.

Probably. I've been confused about this before.

Since the procedure is something implemented by the
Secretariat, the question is what whose authority would they accept to make an
exception. Maybe they'd accept a request from a WG chair. Or maybe not.

But let's suppose we can get ADs out of the exception process. As Dave pointed out last night, the real problem is having to make such exceptions, and this
still doesn't fix that.

I probably wasn't being clear enough - I don't disagree with Dave here, what I was saying was that we were arguing about (please tell me if I'm doing a better job of saying this) a procedure that was intended to enforce a fairly reasonable rule mechanically), and the conversation seemed to assume that AD approval would be required for exceptions, which wasn't required by the rule that the mechanical procedure was intended to enforce.

I am sympathetic to the idea that the rule is more Procrustean than it needs to be, in addition to the procedure requiring something that the rule doesn't require (please tell me if you think I'm agreeing with you, because I think I am).

If ADs do discover copious and uncharted spare time, I would MUCH prefer
that they spend it steering their working groups, and specifically noticing milestone offsets so we can move away from the current situation, where many
so many milestones are expressed in terms of ID cutoffs for the next
meeting, more than half the updates are posted within two weeks of the ID
cutoff, and we're floundering through the drafts getting ready for the
meetings.

This is a consequence of the RFC 2418 rule and more generally of the way our process revolves around our meetings. And while I share your dislike here, I don't think making exceptions to the cutoff or getting rid of it entirely will
change this in any significant way.

Agreed. My attempted point was that I could think of things that I'd prefer to see ADs doing, rather than worrying about "exceptions".

One of my earliest process memories at IETF was in Munich (IIRC), where an IAB member and primary document author had submitted a draft by e-mail several *minutes* after the I-D cutoff, and people seemed to think that missing the cutoff prevented the working group from discussing the draft. I was confused by that memory into thinking that exceptions weren't possible, for several years thereafter. I was wrong, but I wasn't the only person who thought that, at the time.

We're all busy, IETF work is not the
primary thing most of us do, and it is simple human nature to wait until the
last minute to do stuff.

Agreed. I am wondering why we all have to have the same "last minute", only once per IETF cycle, but if we're going to enforce rules mechanically through procedures that don't quite seem to match the rules, I guess we're getting what we deserve.

I am particularly irritated when I see a draft that I submitted comments on immediately after the last IETF meeting (which was a long time ago), updated for the first time within a week of the ID cutoff for the next meeting. This
does not give us timely publication - we can't even remember what we were
talking about, in some cases.

An argument for doing less work at meetings and more work on mailing lists, perhaps, but again I don't see how any sort of change to the cutoff rule can
fix this.

Agreed. I was still thinking of more consistent milestone steering, not that changes to the cutoff rule would affect how often drafts were updated. Sorry that I didn't make this clearer.

Interesting that you would go off to the land of "more work on mailing lists". That would be lovely. I remember Harald talking about the absence of working group mailing list traffic for months between IETFs, for working groups that met at both IETFs, as a not-terribly-healthy sign.

I do, of course, appreciate working group chairs that do stagger their
milestones,

Youi know, it is interesting you should say that, because if it is true
it highlights how different parts of the IETF work quite diferently.

In most of the groups I participate in nobody pays any attention at all to
milestone dates. When a group meets it considers the documents that are ready
to be considered, not the ones that the schedule says must be considered.
Prodding by charis to meet milestone dates is practically unheard of. And lots
of these groups have milestone lists with missed dates. (In fact I believe
there have been cases of milestones seven years or more out of date.)

Agreed.

Thanks for your note, and for the opportunity to (once again attempt to) say what I was thinking more clearly. The communication problem may not be in your receiver, of course :-(

Spencer

_______________________________________________

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

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