Hiya, So I think the actions arising are: - consider whether to have a "not before IETF meetings" restriction and make this an 18 month experiment - maybe remove the text about -bis RFCs. (I slightly prefer it as-is fwiw, but let's see if we get more input) Let me know if that's wrong. Cheers, S. On 01/11/2013 09:34 PM, SM wrote: > Hi Stephen, > At 12:36 11-01-2013, Stephen Farrell wrote: >> You mean rough consensus of the IETF I guess? Good question. > > No, I mean consensus as that's also part what is gauged during a Last Call. > >> First, WG rough consensus is formally unaffected. As is IESG >> review. And if IETF LC comments are received that do meet the >> IESG discuss criteria then those should be handled as now. > > I am not concerned about the WG rough consensus angle (for the > experiment) as it is a subset of a Last Call. > >> So I guess we're left with cases where there's a lack of >> rough consensus during IETF LC but where the meat of the >> disagreement is something that doesn't qualify for an IESG >> discuss ballot. > > Hmm, you mentioned "rough consensus" on an IETF Last Call. The IETF > Last Call is about "consensus". I may have misunderstood the experiment > as I did not read it as "rough consensus and running code". To say it > differently, there isn't any change to the IETF Last Call; this is more > about fast-tracking the WGLC and the IETF Last Call. > >> I'd say that'd be quite likely to allow the responsible AD >> to say that there had been so much debate during IETF LC that >> this experiment ought not be used. > > Ok. > >> So, I don't think this experiment has any major effect >> there really but maybe has a subtle one. >> >> I'll be interested in seeing if this happens if we do the >> experiment. > > Let's see how the experiment works out. > >> I don't get what you mean. Can you explain? (I get that you don't want >> to mention -bis cases, but I don't get why.) > > What the experiment can do is make it easier to move from unpublished > specification to RFC. The "-bis" draft is from a previous RFC. If you > try to cover it the experiment can turn into a significant process > change. I prefer to leave that unspecified and see how the experiment > works out instead of telling people to use it for "-bis" drafts. In a > "-bis" document is in good shape it should not be a significant problem > to get it through the process. > >> Not a bad idea. Something like "fast-track must be started at least >> one month (longer?) before an IETF meeting starts" ? > > The fast-track process cannot be initiated within two weeks of an > IETF meeting. > > You lose five weeks, two before, one for the meeting, and two after. > >> I guess the only problem I'd have with that is that for an experiment >> that'd run for one year, that takes out about 4 months (3 meetings >> and the year-end holidays) which is a lot. > > Ok, make it one week then (see my previous comment). > >> If we extended the experiment to 18 months duration I'd have no >> problem with something like that though. Or with leaving it as-is. > > It can be left out as an implementation detail if it is easier to keep > the experiment to 12 months. > >> Can be. If a WG participant says "the decision you made on that >> draft is broken: I appeal" then they first send that to the WG >> chair. > > Ok. > >> I don't see any text change being suggested there. Correct me if >> I'm wrong. > > You're not wrong. > > Regards, > -sm >