Subject: Protocol Selection Process Discussion

From: "Putzolu, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 08:49:12 -0700

All,

The requirements document has gone to IESG review and appears
complete, and the framework, delta a couple of final
topics recently raised, is approaching the same state.  With the
model draft accepted as a WG document, and at least two protocol 
proposals on the table, it is time to start thinking about 
how we will go about protocol selection.

At least three methods of protocol selection are possible:

Evaluation committee:  Choose a committee of experts that
    examine the proposed protocols and make a recommendation to the
    working group.  Experts are drawn from a set of volunteers
    and are approved by the chairs and ADs.  The experts 
    evaluate protocol proposals and make a recommendation
    to the WG.  The WG would then have a brief discussion period  
    followed by a consensus call by the chairs.

Protocol evaluation draft: The authors of each protocol proposal 
    are asked to contribute to a draft that includes a 
    section dedicated to each protocol.  In the relevant section 
    the authors of each protocol show on a point-by-point basis 
    how their protocol meets the requirements and fits into the 
    framework.  Once completed, the WG reviews the draft, which
    is followed by a consensus call by the chairs.

WG discussion: The WG as a whole holds a discussion on the
    mailing list of the merits of each protocol proposal. At 
    the end of the discussion, the chairs make a consensus call.

Please comment on the procedures above or suggest an alternate
procedure.  We would like to reach a consensus on this topic by 
September 15 so please comment on this in a timely fashion.
Completion of this topic will also signal the start of
protocol selection (and the date by which protocol submissions
should be in place).

Thanks,
David & Patrick

---

From: avri <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 09:27:09 +0900

Hi,

You list 3 methods.  I propose that you use two of the the methods and
hold the third in reserve.

I..e Require each of the proponent groups to submit a d evaluation
draft of their protocol against the requirements and discuss this on
the WG list for some bounded time; e.g. a month.  If consensus is
reached n the list then you have selection.  If it doesn't, at that
point create the committee.  They can take the protocols, the
evaluations and the comments made by the WG and come up with a
recommendation, again in some measure of bounded time.

In any case i suggest the group use 2 out of three.  Even if the WG
decides to go straight to committee, I believe the proponents should
create the evaluation drafts.  And of course I believe those
evaluations should be discussed on the list.

I don't think, btw, that it should fall only on the authors to create
these evaluation drafts.  If they can get others who support their
proposal to contribute to them, I think that is good.

a.