Subject: Re: ion-agenda-and-minutes open for public comment

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 11:37:51 -0600

Again, thanks to Dave and Olaf for putting this together, and converting it 
to ION format.

> An ION (IETF Operational Note, see RFC 4693) is open for public comment
> on the [email-masked] list. Comments should be sent by 2007-02-12.
>
> Note that some early reviewers have suggested that this document
> is not really needed, since IETF minutes are already of a
> good enough standard. Opinions on this point are welcome.

Well, some definitely are good enough, but I provide a decent amount of 
notes to WG chairs at each IETF, and I do see some chairs publish my raw 
notes as minutes with no summaries, so I'd say it's certainly not going to 
make the situation WORSE...

> Please see
> http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/drafts/ion-agenda-and-minutes.html

In RFC 2418, section 6.1, this text appears:

   Communicate results of sessions

<...>

      Immediately after a session, the WG Chair MUST provide the Area
      Director with a very short report (approximately one paragraph,
      via email) on the session.

Recent IETF mailing list traffic indicates that many working groups do this, 
but at IETF 67, at least a couple of ADs indicated that they had NEVER seen 
one of these reports. It would be nice to mention the "immediately-after" 
reports in this ION.

(It would also be nice if these reports were shared with the working groups, 
but that's another story, and maybe controversial for the first version of 
this ION)

I also noticed "providessuggestions " as a typo, which does make me wonder - 
we rely on the RFC Editor for proof-reading, but we're not sending IONs to 
the RFC Editor. Is there a plan?

Thanks,

Spencer 

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 09:17:11 +0100

Xy meaningful way, since it has been 
> updated 5 times so far (according to the RFC Editor search engine).
> 
> The IETF website has just updated pages that said "2026 = standards 
> process" to say something like "2026 as updated = standards process" 
> (http://www.ietf.org/IETF-Standards-Process.html on the main IETF web 
> page used to be a direct link to 2026, but it's not any more.). Going 
> back to "RFC 2026" in IONs is a step backward.

Be specific. Which RFCs that update 2026 are not cited?
> 
> I don't know why the updates are not also part of BCP 9, but they should 
> be. One Might Think. I'd rather fix that, than start training people to 
> ignore the updates AGAIN...

If they were approved as formal updates, that is logged in the RFC Index.
If they weren't approved as formal updates, then they have to be regarded
as stand-alones.
> 
> "Grrr" - One Might Think that Newtrk is still active, from reading 
> Section 2.2, "The newtrk WG was chartered to revise the standards track 
> - multiple proposals have been floated, but no conclusions have been 
> reached", but it has concluded.

Yes, I need to fix that text.

> From what I can tell, draft ION 
> correctly identifies missing documents that might usefully exist, but 
> does not give any clue that parts of RFC 2026 are just flat-out ignored 
> (see: RFC 2026, section 6.2, describing the periodic review of proposed 
> standards and draft standards that we don't do).

My own expostulations on that topic are at
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-carpenter-rfc2026-critique

> I don't know why we would publish this ION ("Informal Guidance") without 
> saying this. There are things in 2026 that we have argued about whether 
> we do or not, but no one thinks we have ever done these reviews.

But an ION isn't supposed to change any rules, so I don't think it
should even say that certain rules are not followed.

    Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 09:17:11 +0100

> I also noticed "providessuggestions " as a typo, which does make me 
> wonder - we rely on the RFC Editor for proof-reading, but we're not 
> sending IONs to the RFC Editor. Is there a plan?

IONs are less formal, so I think the honest answer is "no". And
we are certainly not going to apply any style book rules.

    Brian

-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de
Cc: IETF discussion list <[email-masked]>
Subject: ION typos [Re: ion-agenda-and-minutes open for public comment]
X-BeenThere: [email-masked]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:[email-masked]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:[email-masked]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email-masked]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:[email-masked]?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: [email-masked]

> I also noticed "providessuggestions " as a typo, which does make me 
> wonder - we rely on the RFC Editor for proof-reading, but we're not 
> sending IONs to the RFC Editor. Is there a plan?

IONs are less formal, so I think the honest answer is "no". And
we are certainly not going to apply any style book rules.

    Brian

---

From: Brian Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 11:09:34 -0500

Please see