RE: PROTO Process

["DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <drage at alcatel-lucent.com>]

Randy Presuhn wrote

> > 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.

I used wording to allow it to be that. But if the "revised version required" tag exists in the tracker, I should be able to start with the draft tracker and find some content somewhere in an IETF archive as to what the expectations of that revised version are.

Keith 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wgchairs-bounces at ietf.org 
> [mailto:wgchairs-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Randy Presuhn
> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 5:27 PM
> To: wgchairs at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: PROTO Process
> 
> 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
> 
>