I think there must also be confusion in the data between Independent Submissions and Direct Submissions to the IESG. Anyway, there isn't time to clean the data before the BOF starts, but I do find those two Xs very misleading. Regards Brian On 17/07/2018 09:29, Scott O. Bradner wrote: > see Loa’s note - might want too clean the data before relying on it > > a quick check shows that RFCs 3856-3858 were from the simple WG > RFC 3595 looks like art was the opsawg > > did not check the rest > > but I doubt the LDAP RFCs were IS > > > Scott > >> On Jul 16, 2018, at 5:19 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi Brian, >> >> thanks for the clarification! The slide talks about PS, not DS. I guess >> that is what you meant, right? >> >> Anyway, the database shows a bunch of RFCs from the Independent Stream >> that are Standards Track or BCP, respectively: >> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/search/rfc_search_detail.php?pubstatus%5B%5D=Standards+Track&std_trk=Any&pub_date_type=any&stream_name=Independent >> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/search/rfc_search_detail.php?std_trk=Any&pubstatus%5B%5D=Best+Current+Practice&pub_date_type=any&stream_name=Independent >> >> Cheers, >> >> Gonzalo >> >> On 16/07/2018 5:09 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> Well, I very much doubt that the Independent strem has published a DS and a BCP since the stream was formally defined. Can you clarify? >>> >>> Regards >>> Brian >>> >>> On 17/07/2018 08:40, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >>>> Hi Brian, >>>> >>>> if you are not more concrete with your comments, it will be difficult >>>> for us to address them ;-) Please, note that slide 9 lists what has been >>>> done while slide 10 lists what it is allowed. So, for example, those >>>> slides show that while the Independent Stream is not supposed to publish >>>> Proposed Standards, it was somehow done in the past. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Gonzalo >>>> >>>> On 16/07/2018 4:29 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>>>> slide 9, Independent column, there are 2 erroneous X's >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> Brian >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 17/07/2018 07:09, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >>>>>> Hi Loa, >>>>>> >>>>>> the chair slides are available at (in her email, Heather also sent links >>>>>> to the mailing list archives and to the original BoF proposal): >>>>>> >>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/102/materials/slides-102-rfcplusplus-slides-00 >>>>>> >>>>>> You can find the questions there. As you can see, they are a few very >>>>>> generic questions intended to explore the problem space because, so far, >>>>>> the discussions on the mailing list have not converged at all. We have >>>>>> not seen any consensus so far around whether or not there is a problem >>>>>> and, if so, whether or not it is a problem worth solving. >>>>>> >>>>>> There have been discussions about the solution space as well, but we >>>>>> believe we need to discuss the problem space a bit better before jumping >>>>>> into designing and discussing concrete solutions. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> >>>>>> Gonzalo >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 16/07/2018 1:57 PM, Loa Andersson wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Folks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> With an agenda like this >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/102/materials/agenda-102-rfcplusplus-00 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How am I supposed to prepared the the bof? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /Loa >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> > >
