Subject: Adequate time to review all WG documents

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 22:24:55 -0800

Hello,

"Since it is important that working group members have adequate time 
to review all documents", it would be good if relevant WG documents 
are made available at least two weeks before the start of the WG 
session.  Could the IESG "please do something" so that participants 
have adequate time to review such documents?

The following WGs have not published any agenda yet:

   1. RADEXT
   2. SOFTWIRE
   3. OPSEC
   4. CUSS
   5. FORCES
   6. TSVWG
   7. OPSAWG
   8. IDR
   9. PPSP
  10. PKIX
  11. REPUTE (new WG)
  12. MBONED
  13. CONEX
  14. TICTOC
  15. ANCP
  16. GROW
  17. LISP
  18. MULTRANS (BoF)
  19. KRB-WG

Will the above sessions, excluding exceptional cases, be cancelled?

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 08:12:24 -0700

+1 

I also wonder how the ADs manage to read the documents for their own WGs when the agendas are this late. It's a lot of reading. 

On Nov 7, 2011, at 11:24 PM, SM wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> "Since it is important that working group members have adequate time to review all documents", it would be good if relevant WG documents are made available at least two weeks before the start of the WG session.  Could the IESG "please do something" so that participants have adequate time to review such documents?
> 
cuss - got canceled ....

> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 10:20:22 -0500

> From: SM [[email-masked]]
> 
> [...]

Well, all of the *drafts* for these WGs have to be published by now,
as I-D submission has been cut off.  So you can review them.

I think you are concerned that there is no public notice of *which*
documents *need to be reviewed* for the session, so it is no help to
know that the document is available to read if you knew that you
needed to read it.

Dale

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 11:13:35 -0800

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Cullen Jennings
> Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 7:12 AM
> To: SM
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Adequate time to review all WG documents
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> I also wonder how the ADs manage to read the documents for their own
> WGs when the agendas are this late. It's a lot of reading.

I suspect in some cases the agenda has been discussed and maybe even set on the WG's mailing list, but not uploaded, in which case it's probably less of a problem than it would appear.

That said, it would be nice to tighten this up.

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 11:05:12 -0800

Hi Dale,
>as I-D submission has been cut off.  So you can review them.

I predict that there will be a flood of I-Ds on Monday.  The 
availability of I-D issue is not specific to the WGs mentioned in my 
previous message.

>know that the document is available to read if you knew that you

I would not rate it as a concern as that's too strong.  I'll attempt 
to provide a different perspective.  Let's assume that I will be 
following the forthcoming meeting.  As I am new to the IETF, I'll go 
to www.ietf.org to find the agenda ( 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/82/agenda.html ).  After going 
through the agenda for the WGs I follow, I see that I have some spare 
time which I could put to use by identifying interesting work being 
done in other WGs or areas.  As Websex sounds interesting, I read the 
agenda to check out the drafts as the WG Chairs will likely ask "who 
has read this draft".  There are three drafts [1]:

  (i)   draft-ietf-websec-strict-transport-sec-01
  (ii)  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-evans-palmer-hsts-pinning/
  (iii) draft-hodges-websec-framework-reqs-00

During the WG session, I find out that I read an old version of the I-Ds.

I could pick other examples.  Note that publishing an agenda or 
submitting an I-D before the submission cut-off does not mean that 
people will read all that.  The point is to give  people adequate 
time to identify and review what will be discussed.

Regards,
-sm

1. Two of these I-Ds have already been revised and the reference for 
one of them is not stable.

---

From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 11:26:57 -0800

On 11/08/2011 11:05 AM, SM wrote:
> I predict that there will be a flood of I-Ds on Monday.  The availability of I-D
> issue is not specific to the WGs mentioned in my previous message.
> 
> I would not rate it as a concern as that's too strong.  I'll attempt to provide
> a different perspective.  Let's assume that I will be following the forthcoming
> meeting.  As I am new to the IETF, I'll go to www.ietf.org to find the agenda (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/82/agenda.html ).  After going through the
> agenda for the WGs I follow, I see that I have some spare time which I could put
> to use by identifying interesting work being done in other WGs or areas.  As
> Websex sounds interesting, I read the agenda to check out the drafts as the WG

Websex definitively sounds very interesting...

- -- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Personal email: [email-masked]
Professional email: [email-masked]
Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 20:47:55 +0100

which particular wg's do you plan to attend for which you are having
problems understanding what you need to read?

most of us have been here before

randy

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 12:42:29 -0800

>problems understanding what you need to read?

Multrans posted an agenda.  I do not have any problem understanding 
what I need to read if I follow that BoF.  Joel Halpern and Cullen 
Jennings mentioned that the LISP and CUSS WG sessions have been 
cancelled.  As I mentioned previously, my message was about adequate 
time to review I-Ds.

Regards,
-sm