Harald wrote...
> Foretec has paid employees doing the secretariat job.
One of the transparency problems can be seen at
https://www1.ietf.org/secretariat.html
The Secretariat is hosted by the Corporation for National Research Initiatives.
It can be reached at:
IETF Secretaria
While I find scenario O to be preferable amongst the alternatives so far suggested, I
find
it lacking in a few areas that I would like to see addressed before I give it support.
The document frequently says that "IAOC will be directly accountable to the IETF
community," but in my quick reading of
Gruessdi Carsten,
Let's not pick up on each others use of language shall we?
Disfrachise is a perfectly good word. I believe it means exactly what Stephane
intended it
to mean...
"To deprive of a franchise or chartered right; to dispossess of the rights of a
citizen,
or of a particular privileg
Typos etc. are easily fixed (in-line).
Isn't it normal to give a closing date for applications rather than to
say when evaluation of applications will start? It might also be usual
to indicate from when we are hoping to fill the post.
Is "Salary levels commensurate with experience and qualificati
> What went wrong with ICAR (Improved Cross-Area Review)? It was closed
> due to lack of activity; 12 people enlisted as reviewers, just a
> single review conducted, the reviewers didn't deliver.
I think your conclusion that "the reviewers didn't deliver" might be taken
poorly by the reviewers on
Brian,
> Do you think it's OK for the IESG to kick a draft right back to
> the WG by saying
>
>"This is a mess and fundamentally wrong, but we don't have
> time to tell you why, so you have to go find a reviewer." ?
Yes, but...
If an I-D is really bad, it is simply not possible to do any
> >Now that the two previous main concerns about the Paris IETF are
> >under control (nobody has died from the heat yet and the pocket loss
> >rate is at the expected levels), I have a real problem that is
> >actually hindering the work:
> >
> >Coach class.
> >
> >Opening the laptop in the se
Goodness! You wouldn't let the engineer drive the train. That's the train
driver's job. Would you let an engineer run your network?
Adrian
> > Unfortunately, the English term can carry either of these meanings,
> > depending largely on context. It is applied to people who drive
> > trains (beca
> 1) Outdoor temperature during the meeting above 0 degrees
> Centigrade and below 40.
>
> My personal view is that 2 and 3 are very important, but I'm not
> so sure about 1. Other comments ?
Jordi,
I find it hard to believe that outside temperatures are that important
especially considering the s
Hi John,
> I'm getting more and more troubled by the PESCI process, at
> least the portions of it that I can observe by reading the
> messages on the public list. I've had some of these concerns
> since the process was initiated. I decided to remain silent,
> at least in public, about them on t
Well Jordi,
That told you, didn't it?
Richard, do you speak for the Secretariat, for NeuStar, or for yourself?
Adrian
Richard Shockey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> might have said...
> I'm assuming this is going to be Informational only and as such not
> formally binding on the IAOC on the Secretariat.
Hi,
Would anyone know (could anyone find out) if the Dublin hotel will
countenance camping on their wonderful parkland, or camper vans in their
extensive car parks?
Adrian
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ie
If in doubt, expand acronyms.
But see also http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt
Thanks,
Adrian
> Abstract:
>
> Please expand OSPF on first use.
>
> Section 1.3, first paragraph:
>
> Please expand OSPF on first use.
___
IE
Good point Jari,
Can I also remind you to check in the RFC Errata pages to make sure you pick
up any errors that have been flagged since RFC publication.
Adrian
- Original Message -
From: "Jari Arkko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "IETF Discussion" ; "Working Group Chairs"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is there a cost implication for stripping down the network and other
facilities?
This usually disappears pretty promptly on Friday, presumably allowing it to
be packed up for shipping and the associated staff/volunteers to travel on
the Friday.
If we extend into the mid afternoon, do we have
Hi,
The cut-off period before IETF meetings has (IMHO) some value to help people
read an digest stable documents that will be discussed face-to-face.
However, some I-Ds are beyond WG last call and are going through other
review cycles. Why should updates to these be barred?
For example, I h
vious.
Adrian
- Original Message -
From: "Russ Housley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Adrian Farrel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings
Adrian:
This has been discussed man
Hi,
Do we archive charters and complete millstones for closed WGs?
Thanks,
Adrian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Thanks
(To Scott and the Tools group)
A
Do we archive charters and complete millstones for closed WGs?
see http://www.tools.ietf.org/wg/concluded
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings_directory.html
points to
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/72/materials.html
points back to
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings_directory.html
Huh?
Am I missing something?
Adrian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
htt
Thanks all.
Some trouble getting caches flushed all the way to China.
Adrian
I'm not sure where you started, but I find the proceedings at:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08jul/index.html
I go there directly from:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings_directory.html
The last url (accessed before
Hi Ben,
Thanks for the time and effort.
Responding as an author not as a WG chair...
Section 2.1, paragraph 3:
The last sentence is confusing. "...until the LSR that can process it."
does not seem to describe an event that one can wait "until". Should it
say "...until it reaches the LSR..
That of course goes both ways; going to China is never trivial for me,
and last summer it was a real issue.
I think YMMV.
Over the summer my wife got a Chinese visa in 24 hour turn-around from a
Visa office 190 miles from our home without having to visit.
But then we live in the UK.
Adrian
Something to aspire to.
Get on the list, but be at the bottom.
0.62% |1 | 0.37% | 4035 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Hi Ben,
Oops, I messed up the Gen-ART review boilerplate. Please mentally insert
the following text at the top of my review:
I think we'll let you off just this once.
Document: draft-ietf-mpls-te-scaling-analysis-03
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2008-11-25
IETF LC End Date: 2008-11-3
Sam,
Thanks.
I am adding a brief applicability statement as section 1.3 of this document.
Cheers,
Adrian
- Original Message -
From: "Sam Hartman"
To:
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 5:13 PM
Subject: Last Call: draft-farrel-rtg-common-bnf-07
This draft specifies the BNF va
Thanks Tom,
A) The start of this I-D seems a little coy - 'various protocol
specifications'
'several protocols' - and this is reflected in the Abstract and
Introduction.
Reading between the lines, this seems to have had its genesis in the
'Sub-IP
Area' specification; nothing wrong with that, b
John,
Good of you to write. It has been a while since I received an email from
you.
Having spent several years working with formal and semi-formal
definitions of programming language and being fairly unsatisfied
with IETF trends in the area, I had hoped to avoid looking at
this spec. No such
Thanks John,
It looks to me from your mail that we are in partially violent agreement.
Certainly that this form of BNF needs to be documented.
Also that the Applicability text I have added "will do."
We have two open issues:
- Use of 2119 language
- Standards Track or Informational
On the firs
Since it isn't ABNF, perhaps BBNF?
- Original Message -
From: "John C Klensin"
--On Friday, February 06, 2009 20:59 -0500 Tony Hansen
wrote:
Going back to RFC 2205,
These rules are specified using Backus-Naur Form (BNF)
augmented with square brackets surrounding opti
I do not support the action against Jefsey Morfin, because the outcome
would facilitate a ban on all IETF lists without specific cause and
without recourse. I am not in a position to judge the correctness of a ban
on the lists explicitly cited but I do not believe that we have witnessed
behavior th
Thomas,
Fascinating though I find these summaries to be, I wonder:
- what relevance is there to the ordering in the list?
- how do you pick which weeks to publish summaries for?
[copy of your message snipped to keep down my byte count :-)]
Adrian
___
Suresh,
Many thanks for the review:
Substantial:
* General comment about backward compatibility
I think legacy transit nodes resetting the Call ID to zero on transmission
is a major issue that needs to be addressed more visibly in the draft.
Why? It is not common practice to in
As often, Spencer speaks sense.
By the way, would it be possible for all DISCUSSes and COMMENTs for I-Ds
originated by a working group to be *automatically* copied to the mailing
list of the working group? The reasons are:
- the WG chairs, editors, and interested parties should
not have to m
Brian,
The I-D tracker provides a handy button for the DISCUSSing AD
to forward the DISCUSS to parties outside the IESG - normally
by default it's the WG Chairs.
Brian, I am not suggesting that IESG has to do anything different. Let them
continue to raise their DISCUSSes through the I-D track
But regardless of this, I am concerned that the resolution of a DISCUSS
is not archived anywhere. If you want to restrict the DISCUSS from
reaching the WG unless the WG chair decides, then you MUST log the
resolution (not just the fact of reslution) of each DISCUSS in the I-D
tracker.
Well, t
Hey, I had promised to keep out of this having already used my quota of
emails for the months, but then Fred said...
That said, I _do_ wish the tracker would maintain history of DISCUSS and
COMMENT comments, instead of only showing the latest ballot text.
It does. Click "view details", and
Hi Brian,
If an AD modifies their DISCUSS text, or moves a DISCUSS to a COMMENT,
all that is in the tracker.
Yes. I agree. *If*.
Some ADs are very good about this. (Shall I name names? ;-)
But some are less good.
Often a Discuss is just cleared.
What isn't there is the email trail.
Are you s
Hi David,
Thanks for taking on the drudge work to make something useful and
beneficial.
Comments below.
Adrian
===
Abstract
I think it would be useful if the abstract of this I-D was the abstract
*for* this I-D. That means that you should move the template abstract into
its own section.
===
Brian,
My view may be no surprise to you.
All reviews (including GenArt) and the subsequent discussions should be
copied to *some* mailing list so that the whole process is both public and
archived.
Copying the WG mailing list would be best, but may be a pain because the
reviewer is not usu
Hi,
A few further comments on this I-D.
In general, a quick inspection of RFC4181 is advisable (especially section
3) as this I-D does not appear to be compliant in several cases.
===
The Abstract contains a citation. This should be avoided as the Abstract
should be able to stand alone. Bett
Michael,
One just can tell one's 9 year-old to change the diapers
of the 2 year old.
Sure you can.
Now, getting the desired response may be harder.
Adrian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
"Stephen Casner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote...
I don't know anything about Pingsta or its credibility. However, I am
currently reading a boot...
Yes, this has to be a new and innovative communication method :-)
Adrian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ie
Stewart,
Do we have any firm evidence that we would get more work
done if we had more meetings outside the US?
That is probably a non-question, isn't it?
Do we have any firm evidence that we would get less work done if we had more
meetings outside the US?
Another data point might be...
In
Hi,
This is a question you might want to take to the CCAMP and MPLS mailing
lists. You might also ask the authors of the original I-D.
The draft you reference expired almost three years ago. I have seen no
mention of this behavior in any subsequent I-D or RFC.
Cheers,
Adrian
- Original
The meeting fee is almost the single
largest monetary expense for me, and it keeps going up.
As an individual non-attendee, I couldn't agree more. Even though the
December meeting is (literally) on my doorstep, there is no way I can
justify $750 just to attend a pair of WG meetings.
Well, t
There is still no cost to the IETF, since review time is volunteer
time. The costs are for the secretariat, since someone has to extract
the attachments or retrieve the drafts, get them into the database,
keep the systems up and running, etc.
And, with the advent of the online I-D submission to
We shall see, but I don't know that putting up the price necessarily fixes
the registration income issue. You only have to deter a relatively small
proportion of attendees to wipe out the increase in charge.
I assume that the converse is also being applied: viz. cutting meeting
costs. It's har
Maybe I should elaborate. In several WG where I am active at
least half of participants are from Europe or Asia.
Why do IETF meetings have to be monolithic and all-inclusive?
Because there is already a lack of communicaiton between Areas.
Not to say that there can't be other smaller meetings
Hi Dave,
Readability is valuable. Of course, it should be the case that WG last call,
WG chair review, and IESG review produce something good and clean, but
history shows that this is not the case. Indeed, it is unreasonable to
expect participation at this level by non-native speakers without s
>> In converting what is now RFC 1716 to RFC 1812, which was a HUGE
>> editing task, I used a brand new tool that is now a popular grammar
>> checker. It complained about "which" vs "that", which is neither here
>> nor there,
>
> Well, not quite. "That" is for defining relative clauses, and "which"
> This kind of grammar theead usually ends in tears.
Too right.
And, no doubt, we are shortly to be thoroughly flamed for being off-topic.
I think what it points out is that, those of us who do not know enough about
grammar, should not presume to suggest that fixes to grammar are
unimportant. B
> Rather than following the advice of Appendix C in RFC 3986 which
> recommends putting angle brackets around URLs
Michael,
Try explaining that to the manufacturers of Outlook Express. It has a
"smart" feature.
Adrian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@iet
Thanks for the opportunity to comment. I think it is important to document
extensions and modifications made by other bodies to IETF protocols.
I would caution against progressing this draft until the referenced ITU material
(G.7713.3) has reached consent within the ITU since to move it forward at
To: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALASO ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Adrian Farrel ; Atsushi
Iwata ; Norihito Fujita ; Simon
Marshall-Unitt ; Lin, Zhi-Wei (Zhi) ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; Stephen Shew
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 1:24
PM
Subject: RE: CORRECTION: Last Call:
CR-LDP
> trying to understand what you are saying - it seems like you are
> implying that there is no consensus with in ITU on how to progress
> this, and that therefore would be premature for IETF to publish
> this as an informational RFC. Correct?
I'm not quite saying that.
I am saying that it sounds t
With respect, this draft doesn't appear to have been through WG last call
(unless I was sleeping, but I can't find any reference in the mail archive).
It was only published as a WG draft on 5/7/2003 (despite carrying a date of
February 2003).
While I support the draft, I would like to see it disc
Did anyone decide there was an error here, or is this draft really in IETF last
call?
Thanks
Adrian
- Original Message -
From: "Adrian Farrel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June
Hi,2.4. MTU
TLV The MTU TLV encodes information on the maximum
transmission unit for an LSP, from the advertising LSR to the
egress(es) over all valid paths. The
encoding for the MTU TLV is:
0
1
2
3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
http://www.tta.or.kr/ietf59/transportation.htm
- Original Message -
From: "Steve Silverman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED] Org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 5:46 PM
Subject: Travel from Inchon Airport to Lotte Hotel
> Can anyone provide guidance on how
Barry,
If you believe that a change to process is necessary to make a ruling on
absentee-ism, then you will also (on reflection) believe that process changes
cannot be made retro-active.
So, rushing this through (I do not mean to be pejorative in my use of "rushing")
will not actually help the
; Area of the IETF has been rechartered. For additional information
> please
> > contact the Area Directors or the WG Chairs.
> >
> > Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (bfd)
> >
> > Current Status: Active Working Group
Trimming SM's email...
> There is a direct contribution of US $2.2 million by the Internet
> Society next year. Is the plan to rely on Internet Society subsidies
> or to fix the deficit? One argument made was that the fees have not
> been increased over the last years. I'll point out that there
gt; To: afar...@juniper.net; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: WG Action: Rechartered Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (bfd)
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Adrian Farrel"
> To: "'t.p.'" ;
> Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2012 5:43 PM
> > He
Dale said:
> One way to build up enough credibility
> to get respected people to answer you is to do thankless jobs. In
> most WGs, there are never enough people who are willing to read and
> provide detailed critiques of drafts. (And believe me, almost all
> drafts need significant improvements
I think you miss the point of "This summary is only meant to point you in the
right direction, and doesn't have all the nuances. The IETF's IPR Policy is set
forth in BCP 79; please read it carefully."
That point is: this Note Well is not intended to reproduce the entirety of
BCP79.
Adrian
> ---
I led the discussion in the WG Chairs lunch at IETF 78 on this topic.
Slides at http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/edu/wiki/IETF78#
Adrian
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> George, Wes
> Sent: 28 November 2012 15:36
> To: John L
Just picking at one point...
> 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
>
We could certainly say this. It is a true statement.
However, the document is trying to talk about WG I-Ds, not to provide a general
description of everything the IETF and RFC Editor ever does.
Is it false to say:
Documents under development in the IETF community are distributed as
Internet
Abdussalam,
By all means send text or suggestions for edits.
Dave and I will include what is reasonable and seek a consensus that agrees with
our motivation for writing the document.
Thanks,
Adrian
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Abdussalam Baryun
Sen
I'm interested in this idea.
However, I note that an "implementation status" section of a document is frozen
in time when a document goes to RFC.
I wonder whether we could leverage our tools and do something similar to IPR
disclosures. That is, provide a semi-formal web page where implementation
an widget within data
> tracker.
> >>
> >> Marc.
> >>
> >>
> >>> If this catches on, I see a lot of value in your proposal.
> >>>
> >>> Please also note that the "implementation status" section (according to my
&
ject: Re: Running code, take 2
>
> +1.
>
> Yaron
>
> On 12/13/2012 05:10 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> > How about...
> >
> > Start with Yaron's proposal to include in the I-D. This is easy as a
starting
> > point. Duplicate documentation in wiki m
Lou's view matches how I write and review documents.
I would add that there is sometimes value in using 2119-style language in
requirements documents ("The protocol solution MUST enable transmission of
data...") although, in my opinion, this requires a tweak to the normal2119
boilerplate.
Adrian
Hi Alexa,
Please be aware of this document that has just entered a four-week IETF last
call. The document describes a proposed IETF process experiment under the rules
of RFC 3933.
The proposed experiment calls on the IETF Secretariat to take specific actions
under certain circumstances in corner
Just to help this along a bit...
The IPR WG was concluded in November 2008. However, the mailing list remained
active for the discussion of IPR issues: subscribe via
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg.
The list archive is at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg/current/maillist
Hello,
Sorry I missed your last paragraph in the snow storm.
> So, Adrian, noting the ratio between discussion of this draft on
> the IETF list in the last few weeks and discussions of
> everything else, how long does professional courtesy to another
> IESG member (presumably in combination with
Hi,
This email terminates (prematurely) the IETF last call on draft-farrell-ft.
It is clear to me that this document will not be advanced for further IESG
evaluation without considerable further work and a subsequent IETF last call.
There is no point in continuing this IETF last call.
In no way
Well, is that a meta-judgment call?
I took the view that the full process expressed in draft-farrell-ft could not be
done by the IESG at their discretion. That is, that some of the steps proposed
constituted a significant variation from documented processes or
well-established behavior. Thus, it w
Hi,
Here are some comments resulting from my reading of draft-arkko-iesg-crossarea.
I chose to review the -03 version.
Hope they are useful.
Adrian
===
In several places, this document is careful to state that the text
represents the personal view of the author (Section 4 "Process vs.
Substanc
I kind of promised I would not get sucked into this particular rat hole, but...
The problem is with the poorly scoped use of the word "diversity".
It is clear from some research that certain types of increased diversity do
increase the quality of decision-making.
It is also clear from rational th
Mary,
I need to check but...
> [MB] What I find interesting is that there was 200+ newcomers, but I
> certainly didn't find that many at the meet and greet. I have to
> wonder whether this doesn't have to do with the overlap between Sunday
> tutorials and this event. I think that needs to be f
omers *and* the chairs would want to
be at both sessions.
Adrian
On Thu 14/03/13 12:34 PM , "Mary Barnes" mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com sent:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Adrian Farrel ddog.co.uk> wrote:> Mary,
> >
> > I need to check but...
> >
> >&g
FWIW, the IETF home page has a link (top left) for "Chat Live with the IETF
Community"
In the 6 months that I used to turn up there regularly, I saw very few other
people, but did handle
a couple of relatively "newbie" questions.
I offer this only as a data point to inform subsequent work.
Adr
So instead of asking the community "do you have an intention to implement and
deploy?" we should ask "have you already been going to have implemented and
deployed yet?"
>> thinking about this and assuming that the FTL Communication are
>> deployed in a not too far distant future, wouldn't we have
Hi,
[snipping out some useful points]
We had considered what you suggest below, and indeed I typed it up in a recent
email to Yaron before deleting it again.
Yes, we could do what you suggest, but as you found, it requires a kind of
meta-note to the RFC Editor that starts to get messy and confus
Joe,
In my address book I also have i...@ref-editor.org and
n.brown...@auckland.ac.nz both cc'ed here.
Looking at http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat/ the I-D
state is "Response to Review Needed" as you noted. I don't have an key to the
ISE states, but this one would seem to
Hi Ian,
Examples are useful because they give the IESG something to chew on. If you
don't call us when we do "bad stuff" we might never know.
Examples can be dangerous because we can rat-hole into the specific rather than
the general, but i would like to use your example as data point to get some
And that should, of course, have read "Hi Lloyd"
Sorry about that, Lloyd.
The rest of the message still stands.
Adrian
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian
> Farrel
> Sent: 11 April 2013 22:18
> To:
The perception is important.
It probably shows many things including "attendance is not participation".
Just for the completely unscientific hell of it, I just counted up the mic-sex
in CCAMP's marathon meetings in Orlando. I counted minuted interventions and
presentations. I counted each interven
On 19 April 2013 at 12:22 Abdussalam Baryun wrote
on this list:
> No name in the AD list appear so far, but if your the discuss-list is
> right then it may be good progress, hoping for more names for
> diversity.
I count three ADs on the diversity discussion list at the moment. Why is my
count
Hi SM,
> I have read every word in this document multiple times mainly in the
> order they were written. :-)
Hmmm, you can't be sure what order we wrote them. You can only know what order
they are presented in :-)
> In Section 1:
>
>"The scope of the intended experiment is all Internet-Draf
Hi Fred,
I'm in complete agreement with you, but... :-)
Before investing in a common set of tools to archive implementation information,
I wanted to see whether there was *any* intention to make that information
available.
Thus, this is a baby-step towards the end result that you and I wold lik
Hi John,
Seems consistent with what is in the I-D at the moment. See section 3.
Thus, those who want to record the info in the I-D can do that, while those who
want to go straight to a wiki can do that (although we ask that the I-D has a
pointer to the wiki).
Cheers,
Adrian
> -Original Mes
Hi AB,
Thanks for your review.
> IMHO, we should not request to delete this proposed
> section, but it can be shifted to the Appendix section when published.
> Removing the section is like doing some work in IETF and then
> destroying it, future reviewers/implementers may not know why it was
> ac
Well said, Thomas.
> Two concrete suggestions:
>
> 1) have WGs do the managing role more proactively
> 2) mentor authors and others a bit more to encourage them how best to
> operate
Which I suspect means...
0) have ADs manage/mentor the WG chairs more proactively.
Almost certainly a case of
> >> 1) have WGs do the managing role more proactively
>
> Provide WG Chairs the monitoring tools they need to be proactive - Action
> Tracker, what do I need to do today data tracker views. Same for AD.
>
> Same for authors and their mentors, if any.
Wouldn't work for me. YMMV.
Adrian
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
unnecessarily delay the document from completing the publication pro
for ideas: tail-heavy IETF
process]
>
> 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
> > publicati
In the interests of moving the document forward more briskly, here are my
comments as responsible AD.
Thanks,
Adrian
---
I know it is not the intent of this document to propose solutions or
mitigations to any of the threats described. However, I think two things
would be useful:
1. Please add a
1 - 100 of 249 matches
Mail list logo
