RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")

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

 



At 08:24 29-11-2012, George, Wes wrote:
adoption), let's do that. If we actively *don't* want an IETF-wide procedure here, we can even document that the process for WG adoption of drafts is WG-specific and could document those specifics in a WG policies wiki document maintained by the chairs. There are plenty of WGs that have specific ways that they like to handle document submission, reviews, and requests for agenda time. It might be useful to have that all in one place so that people can know what's expected of them.

There is a wiki for WG Chairs. Melinda Shore posted some comments on this list several months ago. She followed up and added material to the wiki [1]. There must be over a hundred WG Chairs. Only a handful of them have bothered to add material to the wiki.

[WEG] Barry, I respectfully disagree. The whole point I'm making here (and Geoff underscored nicely) is that it's currently too variable and too reliant on a small group of individual volunteers implementing it correctly. When things are not documented, we

The problem which Geoff Huston commented about might have occurred in a working group within the Routing Area.

According to some RFC:

  "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."

If the above was followed there shouldn't be any draft submissions during the week a meeting is held. The following working groups posted drafts during that period:

 DHC
 BMWG
 MPLS
 TSVWG
 MMUSIC
 CODEC
 6MAN
 MANET
 HIP
 APPSAWG
 P2PSIP
 SAVI
 DIME
 DNSOP
 OAUTH
 IDR
 SIPREC
 SIPCORE
 L2VPN
 FECFRAME
 MILE
 EAI
 STRAW
 PRECIS
 XMPP
 JOSE
 PCP
 URNBIS
 LISP
 NFSV4
 MBONED
 SIPCLF
 OPSEC
 TRILL
 CCAMP
 MIF
 REPUTE
 ECRIT
 PAWS

At 11:45 29-11-2012, Melinda Shore wrote:
box.  I'll note that it seems possible that overspecifying process
could potentially cause more protests rather than fewer.

Yes. Section 6.5.1 of a document, which everyone claims to have read and understood, spells out what people should do if they want to protest.

Regards,
-sm

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg75826.html


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