Subject: [httpapi] linkset draft ready for next steps

From: Erik Wilde <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2021 08:48:55 +0200

hello rich and darrel.

herbert and i published version -02 of the linkset draft last week. we 
believe that we have addressed all open issues and so far we have not 
received any feedback telling us differently.

the linkset draft has been in development for a number of years now and 
it would be great to see it becoming a stable specification. after being 
adopted by the working group, we had some good feedback and addressed 
that in our latest version, so we think the draft is ready for the next 
step now.

can you please let us know how to proceed? is there something we need to 
do, or is it something that needs to be done by the working group or the 
chairs?

thanks and cheers,

dret.

-- 
erik wilde | mailto:[email-masked] |
            | http://dret.net/netdret    |
            | http://twitter.com/dret    |

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2021 09:32:51 +0200

> do, or is it something that needs to be done by the working group or the

I did start reading it, but didn't yet send complete feedback/PRs; I'll
try to do that this week.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2021 14:17:30 +0000

Thanks, Julian!

So I think that this is the plan we should follow.  Julian will post his comments (ideally this week, perhaps next) and the authors will respond and perhaps post a new draft. If there's disagreement or controversy, we'll repeat that cycle until issues are settled.  Once that's done, we'll issue a working group last call (WGLC) and proceed.  The rest of this note describes the process for those not familiar with how the IETF works.

WGLC is a time, at least a week, for WG members to raise issues. If there's anything substantive, we restart the process.

We are in the "ART, Applications and Real Time" area and our AD is Francesca Palombini. She will read the document, perhaps provide another round of feedback, and then request that it is put on the IESG tele-chat. The IESG is all AD's, and they have technical review/oversight of all IETF RFC's. The telechat is every two weeks, and there will be at least that amount of time to give other AD's time to read the document. Many Areas have "directorates" which is volunteers familiar with the area who read and offer input to their AD. This will result in another round of feedback.

Often the issues are just editorial: "this wasn't clear to me." That happens often when someone reads a draft for the first time, compared to those who have been working with it for a while. If an IESG member puts a "DISCUSS" vote on the draft, then the issues they raise *must* be addressed by the authors and WG. Sometimes that results in a new WGLC if the changes are substantive. The WG chairs decide.

Once the IESG approves the document, it is given to the RFC Editor staff. They do final copy-editing, work with other registration authorities if needed, and consult with the authors.  Because of the backlog, going from IESG to publication can take months.

Hope this helps!
	/r$

---

From: Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2021 17:50:47 +0900

Hello Rich,

Many thanks for your careful explanations. Getting such careful 
explanations in a WG is rare but very helpful for newcomers.

Just two thinks I'd add/change:

1) Somewhere between WGLC and IESG tele-chat, there's also an IETF-wide
    Last Call, usually for 2 weeks, which can also result in comments,
    discussions, and a new draft.
2) "If an IESG member puts a "DISCUSS" vote on the draft, then the
     issues they raise *must* be addressed by the authors and WG.":
    a) Other comments by WG members are also best addressed in some way.
    b) "addressed" doesn't necessarily mean that we need to do exactly
       what the IESG member wants, but it means that we have to discuss
       the issue very seriously and try to do our best, until the
       IESG member is statisfied.

Regards,   Martin.

---

From: Erik Wilde <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2021 15:03:51 +0200

hello rich.

thanks a lot for your email and detailed explanation!

On 2021-06-08 16:17, Salz, Rich wrote:
> So I think that this is the plan we should follow.  Julian will post his comments (ideally this week, perhaps next) and the authors will respond and perhaps post a new draft. If there's disagreement or controversy, we'll repeat that cycle until issues are settled.

sounds good. for now, we're assuming that -02 has addressed all the 
issues we have seen until now. but we'll of course wait for julian's 
feedback about his open issues and potential additional ones.

thanks a lot and cheers,

dret.

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2021 19:23:15 +0200

Am 09.06.2021 um 15:03 schrieb Erik Wilde:
>> So I think that this is the plan we should follow.  Julian will post
>> his comments (ideally this week, perhaps next) and the authors will
>> respond and perhaps post a new draft. If there's disagreement or
>> controversy, we'll repeat that cycle until issues are settled.
>

Erik,

I'd like to open PRs, but your repo org makes that hard, because there's
no "latest" file that could be the target of the PR.

Could you please either create "draft-ietf-httpapi-linkset-03.xml" in
the repo, or better yet, something line "draft-ietf-httpapi-linkset.xml"
or "draft-ietf-httpapi-linkset-latest.xml" which doesn't have a specific
version number in it and could be used for all future edits?

Best regards, Julian

(and yes, I could create a PR for that)

---

From: Erik Wilde <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2021 19:41:53 +0200

hello julian.

> version number in it and could be used for all future edits?

for now and hopefully good enough for this draft, i have created the -03 
version for you:

https://github.com/ietf-wg-httpapi/linkset/blob/master/draft-ietf-httpapi-linkset-03.xml

thanks and cheers,

dret.