Perhaps priority should be given to those I-Ds with running code. -andy On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 12:41 PM Adam Roach <a...@nostrum.com> wrote: > > [as Area Director] > > Hi! > > While I appreciate that the proposal you've put forth is trying to ensure > that popular or urgent work doesn't end up getting blocked on lower priority > items (and pushed into other venues), we have pretty solid historical data > that shows that the approach you're describing leads to very slow progress in > moving documents towards publication. What's important to keep in mind is > that the working group is entirely in charge of which milestones to add to > its chartered work, and that it's possible to remove milestones if you later > decide that you need the slot for something more important. > > The chairs have been very good about working with the working group to > actively manage which documents should become and stay milestones. As this > active management approach has led to more regext documents reaching the > "publication requested" state rather than fewer, it seems that it is more > likely to stave off the need to publish mechanisms outside the IETF than the > previous, lower-throughput approach. > > /a > > > On 10/26/18 7:16 PM, Gustavo Lozano wrote: > > Antoin, Jim, et.al. > > My understanding of this message is that only a certain number of I-Ds will > be allowed to be adopted as WG documents. > > If my understanding is correct, I feel uncomfortable with defining a number, > because it appears to exist a recent enthusiasm for creating I-Ds (probably > related to the popularity of registration data privacy in several > jurisdictions) and having an artificial gate could push authors and > implementers to define the standards outside of the WG/IETF. > > My preference is for allowing any I-D, that the WG believes that is a good > fit, to be adopted. If a subset of the WG participants or non-participants > want to get involved in the development of an I-D that is not part of the > milestones, they should be free to do so, and the I-D should be allowed to > reach RFC status based on the number of reviewers, running code and the last > calls. > > Regards, > Gustavo > > -----Original Message----- > From: regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of James Galvin > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2018 07:15 > To: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext@ietf.org> > Subject: [Ext] [regext] regarding adopting new documents and milestones > > By now you should have seen the draft agenda for IETF103. On it you will see > 8 > requests for adopting new documents as working group milestones. The chairs > are concerned that we should not adopt quite that many new documents all at > once. > > If you look at our current milestone list, there are 3 open milestones. > One of these (“EPP Domain Name Mapping Extension for Bundling > Registration”) we expect to close quite soon as the shepherd is actively > preparing the writeup. This leaves us with 2 milestones we may wish to > reconsider whether to keep or not. > > The chairs are proposing that the working group should not have more than 5 > open milestones at a time. We can discuss if that’s the right number but for > now we will use that as our starting point. > > Given that two milestones will remain on our list we will only have room for 3 > new documents to adopt. > > We are asking the group to think about the following questions. > > 1. How many open milestones should we allow ourselves to have? > > 2. Do we want to reconsider any currently open milestones? > > 3. Of the 8 documents being proposed for adoption, which ones are the > priorities, i.e., the documents we want to adopt first? > > The last item on our agenda is a discussion of our milestones. We will use > this > time to consider the questions listed above. > > Please note, whatever priorities we create from this discussion will need to > be > brought to the mailing list for final agreement. We will follow that with a > separate individual request for adoption of each document selected by the > working group. > > If you have any questions or comments please do respond to the list. > > Thanks, > > Antoin and Jim > > _______________________________________________ > regext mailing list > regext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext > > > _______________________________________________ > regext mailing list > regext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext > > > _______________________________________________ > regext mailing list > regext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
