Last Modified: 2003-10-20
This group is charged with producing the document describing these problems. The analysis of the problem should seek out the root causes of the problems as well as the perceived derivative problems.
The intent is that the group will discuss issues on its mailing list, and that there will be an editing team to produce a clear concise problem statement on which the group has come to consensus and present to the IETF as a basis for an IETF consensus.
As a second work item, the group will also produce a proposal for a process to develop solutions to the problems identified by this working group.
It is not a part of this group's charter to propose solutions to the problems.
The work items will be reviewed in IESG plenary at the IETF.
|Done||First I-D of problem statement issued|
|Done||Problem statement reviewed at the IESG Plenary|
|Done||First I-D of draft document describing the process by which the ietf will change its processes issued|
|May 03||Problem statement submitted for IESG review|
|Jul 03||Draft document describing the process by which the ietf will change its processes reviewed at the IESG Plenary|
|Aug 03||Draft document describing the process by which the ietf will change its processes submitted for IESG review|
|Oct 03||Re-charter or close working group|
problem statement working group - 11/12/2003 The Problem WG met from 1pm to 3pm on Wednesday November 12th 2003. The issues document: The changes to the issues document between version 4 and version 5 were reviewed. The proposed fixes to the document based on the issues raised during the WG last call were reviewed. No one had any objection to the proposed fixes. The list of open issues were raised and discussed. No one felt that the document needed to be changed because of these issues. The chair asked if there were any objections to taking version 5 to a second (one week) WG last call, after which it would be forwarded to the General AD for consideration for publication as an Informational RFC. The General AD asked if the working group felt that there should be an IETF Last-Call for this document. The sense of the room was that it should. The process document: The chair asked if the working group felt that it would be OK if the process document could list alternative paths forward with a note to say that the working group was not able to reach consensus on any particular path. No one had any problem with closing the document in this way. Joel Halpern asked if the document should be published as an RFC at all. After discussion the sense of the room was that the process document should be published as an informational RFC. The future of the working group The chairs asked if the working group should be closed since its work was done when the two documents were sent to the General AD. The sense of the room was that it should be