Re: addressing Last Call comments [Re: "Discuss" criteria]

[Henning Schulzrinne <hgs at cs.columbia.edu>]

It seems like most other SDOs use formalized issue trackers for the  
equivalent of last call ("ballot") comments, making it easy to see  
what has been going on. Some WG do this, but each usually picking  
their own peculiar tracker.

The problem with any substantial IETF LC or WGLC comments is that  
they are often multiple issues, from the trivial spelling errors to  
fundamental architectural issues. It is difficult to make sure that  
all have been addressed and that discussions don't become >>>>>  
emails with meaningless subject lines - unintentionally making sure  
that nobody beyond the authors (if you're lucky) pays attention.

Putting all comments, including DISCUSS, into a document-specific  
issue tracker would be most helpful. (It would be helpful even beyond  
publication of an RFC, as we have found for the SIP documents, as  
they can be used to gather issues that a future "bis" effort needs to  
address. From what I can tell, almost all of the non-trivial protocol  
documents these days generate an draft-ietf-rfcXYZbis, after all.)

Henning

On Jan 12, 2007, at 3:54 AM, Pekka Savola wrote:

> Jeff, you wrote a good note.  I'll use this as an opportunity to  
> expand on one topic a bit:
>
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 03, 2007 10:49:33 PM +0000 Dave Crocker  
> > <dhc2 at dcrocker.net> wrote:
> > >  C.  PROCEDURAL BREAKAGE
> > >  -----------------------
> > > >  * IETF process related to document advancement was not carried  
> > > out;
> > > >  e.g.,  there are unresolved and substantive Last Call comments  
> > > which the
> > > >  document  does not address...
> >
> > IMHO, this particular situation is more than just "procedural  
> > breakage". If a document reaches this point with outstanding last  
> > call comments, then there is a more basic failure.  Such a  
> > document should not have reached the point where a DISCUSS is  
> > required to keep it from progressing long enough for the comment  
> > to be addressed.
>
> Well, it seems rather common that IETF LC comments (especially if  
> not copied to ietf at ietf.org list) are not responded.  To reduce  
> delay, it also seems common that IESG telechat is scheduled as soon  
> as possible after IETF LC closes, and document is usually not taken  
> out of the agenda if comments are received during the LC.  Also  
> sometimes the document gets approved without there being any record  
> (e.g., on IESG ballots) that some comments had been made but there  
> was no response.
>
> Therefore it is not clear to me whether such comment was  
> "addressed" (I'd call this 'processed') but without public record  
> [e.g., editor or chair] in essence rejecting the comment (possibly  
> in good faith) or not received at all (maybe also in good faith,  
> e.g. if WG mailing list discards non-subscriber posts or the  
> moderator is asleep).
>
> Maybe we should be clearer on what the expectation for processing  
> IETF LC comments is.  Unless we do, it is not obvious how we could  
> evaluate whether the procedure has been carried out properly or not.
>
> --
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf