[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: PROTO Process

If this helps: "Adding Value" is a derogatory comment.

On May 15, 2009, at 6:20 AM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:


I's not sure what side of the fence Eric is sitting on here.
I have a view that in many cases the IESG is trying to do too much to a document. Certainly I do not believe it is an IESG function to add value. I suspect the process should be more clear cut of either approving the document warts and all, or deciding it is not publication ready and sending it back to the working group with a clear description of why the document could not be published.
That would solve the "buried in the IESG" problem in one quick process change, and encourage the issues with the documents to get out on the working group lists, which is what fails to happen at the moment. 

If the document is really wrong, they can work on it again.
For a number of the IESG comments I have seen have come from our own area directors, I believe they should really have been made as individuals during the consensus building process in the WG, rather than as IESG comments. 

regards

Keith


-----Original Message-----
From: wgchairs-bounces at ietf.org
[mailto:wgchairs-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eric Burger
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 6:29 PM
To: Working Group Chairs
Subject: Re: PROTO Process

+1.  On the one hand, most of the documents I have been shepherding
have not had the "lost in IESG" issue Jari mentions.
However, I have on numerous occasions had the impression that
some ADs really wanted to "add value" to a document.  If
there was a procedure to correct this, I am all for it!

On May 13, 2009, at 5:05 PM, Fred Baker wrote:



On May 13, 2009, at 7:17 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

The alternative explanation is that the "have to be

modified" could

be stated slightly differently as "have to be modified to get
through" AD review, which is the sort of thing I sometimes hear
people saying. This locution suggests that people do not

regard the

IETF and AD reviews as useful tests that improve the technical
quality of a document, but that instead the reviews are

regarded as

hurdles to clear on the way to publishing an RFC. This

might suggest

a reluctance to compromise that is not ideally matched for our
consensus-based approach. If that's right (and I don't

know whether

it is), then no procedural tweaks will fix it either, because the
problem is still the suitability of the documents for

publication as

RFCs unless we abandon rough consensus as a test.


Having been on both sides of this divide, I think I can attest that
both views hold water.

As IETF chair and with Scott Bradner as one of the ADs, I

noted that

any draft that used normative language and didn't cite RFC

2119 would

get a "discuss" on the point, and included that in my (decade- old
now) id nits bullet list simply to avoid the predictable revision
cycle. As an author on what is now RFC 4192, I found a

particular AD

to be using his position on the IESG as leverage to force into the
document a statement which was both vacuous and untrue -

and which the

working group had not discussed. I asked him for text

supporting his

position, which he didn't supply, and his "discuss" was

removed when

he left the IESG. Those are both cases of "what it took to get past
the IESG".

On the other hand, at least in my opinion, the original L2TP draft
sent to the IESG was largely incomprehensible. Tom Narten's efforts
with the authors, centered around "I'm not removing my 'discuss'
until I can understand your document", resulted in a

complete rewrite,

which was a vast improvement. While that was an extreme case, I can
think of many cases in which IESG comments have improved

documents in

real ways.

As an author, I sometimes get the feeling that ADs place discusses
because they feel honor-bound to find something wrong with

a document.

I personally would appreciate getting those remarks during

the working

group process rather than having the AD wait for last call to place
them. I appreciated Magnus' detailed comments on a draft I

am working

on in behave coming now rather than later, as they

constitute a lot of

additional effort - effort that was not deemed necessary when SIIT,
which the draft updates, was first proposed. In general, I

think that

directorate review and AD review works best if it happens during
working group discussion rather than as a remedial effort after the
fact.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature