Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress and draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress and draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model



Hi Charles,

I think you're right about new processes being discussed elsewhere in other WGs.

Existing process could be discussed here though, I believe.

Charles E. Perkins a écrit :
[...]
If we realize that was wrong, then we need a procedure to deal with
 that.  Ideas feel free to  express how to deal with it.

My suggestion would be to ask your contacts on the IESG about which
working group would be appropriate for this work.

Hmmm... let me think... who do I know in IESG...

Otherwise, let's see what we can do process-wise here in AUTOCONF.

How about asking the Chairs to ask the Group to send their requests for
agenda items soon?

This is also a sort of process, or ways I see happening already in
many WGs, and not in AUTOCONF :-(

If we do that agenda stuff now, then there'll be less surprise later during the meeting.

Or you prefer to be surprised?

[...]

I have never seen any other time where people submit WG items
before having consensus on the WG.

You might want to check on that.

Well I checked recently 6MAN, NETEXT, MEXT, ROLL, 6LoWPAN - the 5 had calls for WG item adoption. Often there was call for adoption of the DT output too.

The process for adopting WG items has by no means always been so
nitpicky as you seem to suggest.

Hmmm... I am curious about the WGs where WG item adoption isn't usually happening with a call - please enlighten.

I am not nitpickying sorry. I have already discussed twice offline with somebody else surprised how we don't see agenda, no item adoption call, on this WG.

Let alone the non-use of the issue tracker.

You might find all those to be obstacles to finishing the DT draft, I know - ok. I personally can not go any further without such processes.

Let us finish here about process and say we don't agree. I will read your post about this, but not reply unless you ask me explicitely to reply.

Alex


Regards, Charlie P.





Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.