> Without wishing to be nasty, I will point out that we have way more
> vendors than operators participating in our standards development.
Into the Future with the Internet Vendor Task Force
A very Curmudgeonly View
or
I must say that I have enjoyed reading the discussion between the three of you,
and think it is immensely valuable in explaining what the IESG ought to be
doing. You three should write it up.
On May 15, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> The claim (or one of the claims) is that some ADs may place Discusses that
> are
> intended to raise a discussion with the authors/WG that could equally have
> been
> raised with a Comment or through direct email. This, it is claimed, may
> unnec
On 2013-05-16 14:38, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
Discussions should have a time limit (can be one week),
I totally disagree, DISCUSSES are our friends, they need to be
discussed until we have rough consensus; it seems to be a
manifestly bad idea to draw a deadline after seven days, if
someone c
Please distinguish between (1) making the system efficient and (2) making
individual documents go through it quickly. If you put time limits on
parts of the process, you're not allowing them to function correctly.
Putting arbitrary time limits on will hurry things up but it will not
produce highe
Hi Loa,
I agree with you discussions are our friend. I was focusing on
processing time, not document quality. No dought if you stay longer
time you will get better quality, but what about progress. So I mean
call for discussions is for a time limit, as if no discussion happends
then the call matur
On 5/16/13, Scott Brim wrote:
> Please distinguish between (1) making the system efficient and (2) making
> individual documents go through it quickly. If you put time limits on
> parts of the process, you're not allowing them to function correctly.
> Putting arbitrary time limits on will hurry
>> Putting arbitrary time limits on will hurry things up but it will not
>> produce higher quality results.
>
> Ok, so do you agree, that if who holds the work, at least should tell
> us HOW long he is holding or what is the time PLAN. Do you think
> working without plan is efficient and gives good
> From: Thomas Narten
>
> What I do think the IETF should do is *require* that participants
> identify themselves. That means knowing who they are (a name and email
> contact) and an affiliation. For 80% of the participants, this info is
> not very hard to figure out (see below). But we also have
On 5/15/2013 1:30 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Suppose the AD raised her concern by writing a Comment or sending an email and
balloting "No Objection." That would mean that the I-D would be approved for
publication.
At this point either:
- the discussion goes on, but the document becomes an RFC anyw
That's a good question Dave.
The community might like to comment.
On the whole, I am told that if an AD weighs in with her comments during working
group last call, her fearsome personality may overwhelm some of the WG
participants and she may dominate the WG consensus.
Is it possible that the s
On 5/16/2013 9:40 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
That's a good question Dave.
The community might like to comment.
On the whole, I am told that if an AD weighs in with her comments during working
group last call, her fearsome personality may overwhelm some of the WG
participants and she may dominate
On May 16, 2013, at 1:01 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> http://dcrocker.net/#gender
That's what I do. It gets a bit awkward with verb agreement and constructs
like "themself," which elicits the dreaded red snake underline of doom. But I
find it more comfortable than just subverting the sexist p
Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> And of course, the reality is that we allow bad specs out the door all
> the time; we just allow fewer of them than many/most other standards
> bodies...
But different to (at least some) other standards bodies, we lack an
official means to publish defect reports (aka err
On Thursday, May 16, 2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
> By the time the IESG schedules the vote, ADs need to already have educated
> themselves about the document.
>
Oh, so you're suggesting adding another phase to the process: IESG
education. OK.
>
> So here's a simple proposal that pays attention t
On 5/16/13 10:01 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 5/16/2013 9:40 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
That's a good question Dave.
The community might like to comment.
On the whole, I am told that if an AD weighs in with her comments
during working
group last call, her fearsome personality may overwhelm some
On May 16, 2013, at 9:08 PM, Scott Brim
mailto:scott.b...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
By the time the IESG schedules the vote, ADs need to already have educated
themselves about the document.
Oh, so you're suggesting adding another phase to the process: IE
I think Dave's idea is worth looking at, but have one comment:
On 05/16/2013 09:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
> There is a problem, though, that this will increase the load on ADs.
There is that. But don't forget that ADs mostly read everything
in IESG review and often comment. Even leaving aside DISCU
Hi,
I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for
this draft (for background on appsdir, please see
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate ).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive. Please
On May 16, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> On the whole, I am told that if an AD weighs in with her comments during
> working
> group last call, her fearsome personality may overwhelm some of the WG
> participants and she may dominate the WG consensus.
There may be places where that h
Dave,
On 17/05/2013 04:23, Dave Crocker wrote:
...
> The problem here is that basic reviewing is being done by the ADs too
> late in the process.
You are making a lot of assumptions in that sentence. At least these:
1. "Basic" reviewing means
2. At some stage before approval, ADs should
Tobias:
Thanks for the review. Really, the delegation id to the RIRs. which in turn
use the ICANN ASO to establish global policy.
Thanks again,
Russ
On May 16, 2013, at 4:56 PM, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for this
>
On May 16, 2013, at 5:00 PM 5/16/13, "Fred Baker (fred)" wrote:
>
> On May 16, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>
>> On the whole, I am told that if an AD weighs in with her comments during
>> working
>> group last call, her fearsome personality may overwhelm some of the WG
>> particip
On 05/16/2013 04:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
The time for asking whether the group has considered making this field
fixed length instead of variable, or whether RFC 2119 language is used
in an appropriate way, or whether the protocol is extensible enough is
at IETF last call.
Actually the time fo
Dave - I hope you'll indulge my selective quoting as I have a couple of
specific points to address. My apologies if I end up quoting you out of
context...
On May 16, 2013, at 12:23 PM 5/16/13, Dave Crocker wrote:
> [...]
>
> So here's a simple proposal that pays attention to AD workload and
On May 16, 2013, at 5:58 PM 5/16/13, Keith Moore
wrote:
> On 05/16/2013 04:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>> The time for asking whether the group has considered making this field fixed
>> length instead of variable, or whether RFC 2119 language is used in an
>> appropriate way, or whether the protoc
On 5/16/13 2:58 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
On 05/16/2013 04:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
The time for asking whether the group has considered making this
field fixed length instead of variable, or whether RFC 2119 language
is used in an appropriate way, or whether the protocol is extensible
enough is at
On 5/16/13 4:07 PM, Ralph Droms wrote:
>
> On May 16, 2013, at 5:58 PM 5/16/13, Keith Moore
> wrote:
>
>> On 05/16/2013 04:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>>> The time for asking whether the group has considered making this field
>>> fixed length instead of variable, or whether RFC 2119 language is use
On May 16, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
> There is a problem, though, that this will increase the load on ADs. Other
> concerns raised during IETF LC may lead to revised I-Ds, which the ADs will
> need to re-read (or at least look at the diff). I don't know how significant
> this extra w
Hi Ben,
Thank you very much for the review comments. Please see inline responses from
authors of the document on the comments.
Hi Sherpherd and AD,
we will update a version very soon.
thanks a lot.
Weiming
- Original Message -
From: "Ben Campbell"
I am the assigned Gen-ART revi
On 05/16/2013 06:09 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
Fix that problem, and most of the conflicts between IESG and WGs that
surround DISCUSS votes will go away.
Maybe but I wouldn't take that as an article of faith. You're going to
get pressure for more changes when fresh eyes review something.
Yeah,
Total of 151 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri May 17 00:53:02 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
9.27% | 14 | 9.58% | 113593 | mo...@network-heretics.com
9.27% | 14 | 7.82% |92650 | to...@
32 matches
Mail list logo
