Re: PROTO Process

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>]

Hi -

> From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <drage at alcatel-lucent.com>
> To: "Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko at piuha.net>; "Russ Housley" <housley at vigilsec.com>
> Cc: <wgchairs at ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 3:50 AM
> Subject: RE: PROTO Process
...
> 1) In a number of cases the AD requests changes during the AD
> evaluation stage and the shepherd does not get informed of that.
> Perhaps you should do a survey of the number of instances were
> a "revised version required" is recorded

This has not been a problem in my limited experience.

> 2) Many of the issues do not get recorded in the drafts tracker tool,
> and the shepherds cannot actually update the tracker, so they are
> unable to use this as a tool to help them in the work.

In my WG, *everything* gets taken back to the WG for discussion,
even editorial / clarification comments.  This means that the issues
end recorded up in our tracker, if not the drafts tracker.

> Perhaps you should do a survey of the number of instances were
> a "revised version required" is recorded in the drafts tracker,
> against where tracker provides sufficient information to track
> down why a new version is needed. In any case, in an open
> process this information should be recorded and available to all.

I agree that the rationale for changes, especially those happening
late in the process, should be recorded *somewhere* publicly
accessible.  I'm not convinced that the drafts tracker is necessarily
the place to do it - pointers might suffice.

Randy