Subject: [edu-team] Re: Small topic for WG chairs lunch from IESG

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 14:43:37 -0500

This agenda is quite full, so if there is no rush I think it would  
make sense to do this at IETF 71.

Margaret

On Dec 2, 2007, at 1:24 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

> Hi, Margaret,
>
> Russ asked that the EDU team put something on SOME WG chairs lunch  
> agenda (this IETF or next IETF, depending on how full your schedule  
> is).
>
> The topic is about telling ADs when WGs are forwarding  
> Informational documents that may need more review (requirements,  
> architecture, frameworks, applicability) than typical Informational  
> documents.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Spencer
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
edu-team mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-team

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 10:24:58 -0800

Hi, Margaret,

Russ asked that the EDU team put something on SOME WG chairs lunch agenda 
(this IETF or next IETF, depending on how full your schedule is).

The topic is about telling ADs when WGs are forwarding Informational 
documents that may need more review (requirements, architecture, frameworks, 
applicability) than typical Informational documents.

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:31:06 -0500

No problem.  It's clear that education is needed in this area.

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 08:33:29 -0500

> applicability) than typical Informational documents.

Not sure the current state of things, but don't all WGs fill out a
standard questionaire when forwarding a docment to the IESG/AD for
processing, whether standards track or not? That questionaire
presumably already has (or could have) questions that would be used to
highlight the need for additional review.

Thomas

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 07:14:32 -0800

Not speaking for the ADs (I was the messenger, Russ said "send this to 
Margaret"), but I think Russ was saying that WG chairs don't have to be 
subtle -

if WG chairs say

"this draft is targeted informational, but it's an architecture draft and 
will shape our work on all future deliverables",

the ADs will

(1) think that's a good thing, and

(2) will all put that information in the notes field that shows up on the 
ballot, and

(2) will all look for that information on each other's drafts...

This came up out of a discussion on roughly "all Informationals are not 
equal, we want to focus on important ones and do a lot less review for the 
others".

Spencer

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:01:26 -0500

Yes.  However, we want the WG Chairs to highlight Informational 
documents that are going to guide future Standards Track work for the WG.

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:30:52 -0500

> documents that are going to guide future Standards Track work for

Sounds like a great (explicit) question to have on the standard
questionaire. I.e., to try and say how important the document is on
future work/direction.

Thomas

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 09:11:24 +1300

> questionaire. I.e., to try and say how important the document is on

BTW, the questionnaire isn't constrained by RFC 4858 - the current
version is linked off http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/index.html

      Brian