Subject: When is a DISCUSS really a discussion?

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 06:09:20 +0800

and, now for something completely different ...

One thing I've noticed in sitting quietly and typing IESG telechat narrative 
minutes is that a DISCUSS is a living thing.

- Sometimes a DISCUSS starts out as "this can't be right", and morphs into 
"the working group really thinks it's OK to blow off congestion and 
security".

- Sometimes a single AD's DISCUSS text changes - maybe more than once. So to 
talk about "<insert name here>'s DISCUSS on ip-over-hamsters" isn't always 
precise.

- Sometimes a DISCUSS starts out as a really big DISCUSS, that becomes a big 
COMMENT and a short DISCUSS. There are IESG members who challenge specific 
points of a DISCUSS - not sure I've heard all of them do it, but it's pretty 
common.

- Sometimes a COMMENT becomes a DISCUSS because another DISCUSS becomes a 
COMMENT. Sometimes a DISCUSS becomes a COMMENT because the AD couldn't cast 
the 11th DISCUSS on one document ("not a good use of AD time").

There are certainly other paths through the maze to the cheese, but you get 
my drift.

So, what I would suggest is that people stop stroking out about the 
(amazingly high) number of documents that collect DISCUSS ballots, and focus 
on documents that don't clear DISCUSS in two (or some other small number of) 
telechat cycles.

Or some other metric. But just because you get a DISCUSS, doesn't mean you 
have a problem that takes more than a few minutes to work out. You may, but 
that's where we should focus.

What follows is from a little more than a year of IESG telechat narrative 
scribing. It does not follow the ID tracker state machine, I'm just trying 
to explain what I hear on the telechats.

The way it usually works is, Amy says, "there are X DISCUSS ballots, <insert 
AD's name here>, do we need to DISCUSS them today?", and the lucky AD says 
one of a few things:

- "no, the DISCUSSes are clear and actionable, and I agree with the 
concerns", or

- "yes", but the ADs talk and figure out that the point of concern is not a 
real concern at all, so the DISCUSSing AD clears, or

- "yes", but the ADs talk and figure out what the real issue is, and how to 
solve it, usually terminating in "if that happens, I'll clear my DISCUSS" 
(note that the sponsoring AD usually asks the DISCUSSing AD to hold the 
DISCUSS until it's addressed, just so the sponsoring AD doesn't misplace 
it - this isn't a lack of trust), or

- "yes", but the ADs talk and say the issue is real and the working group 
needs to make some decisions (the ADs do suggest RFC-Editor notes on calls, 
but this isn't common and isn't usually more than two or three lines of 
text), so the document goes for AD followup, or

- (and this doesn't happen often), the ADs don't work out a path forward, 
either before the call (ADs do talk), during the call, or after the call, 
and the document continues in DISCUSS status.

It would be lovely if our documents were so good, and our working groups 
were so good, and our ADs were so good, that there was never a DISCUSS. 
Until that happens, I'm OK with most of the interactions that happen on the 
telechat, and I suspect others would be, too.

But I'd like to focus on the documents that just hang. There are some. They 
aren't a large percentage of the documents that appear on each telechat 
agenda.

So, if we could agree on a metric (and the IESG has LOTS of metrics now), 
that might be helpful.

Thanks,

Spencer

p.s. The Narrative Minutes for telechats are not a deep, dark secret, and 
have been available at http://www.ietf.org/IESG/iesg-narrative.html for 
about a year. Linked from the IESG home page, one click down from the IETF 
home page. If you think they are useful, please say so - and then volunteer 
as a scribe, because Brian has been asking for more volunteers for a while 
now. If you think they are not useful, Brian, and his replacement, would 
love to know that, because both Marshall and I have things we aren't doing, 
because we're scribing for the IESG.

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 4:43 AM
Subject: Re: IESG Success Stories

>I strongly agree with John's reasoning here. But please keep reading...
>
> From: "John C Klensin" <[email-masked]>
>
>
>> I have two questions...
>>
>> (1) Do you have evidence of actual situations in which an AD
>> behaved in this way, kept concerns to him or herself, and then
>> raised them only, and for the first time, via a DISCUSS after
>> Last Call?
>>
>> (2) If the answer to (1) is "yes", why didn't you, and the other
>> people who were impacted, immediately file recall petitions?
>>
>> The second question is not rhetorical.   We all understand that
>> recalls would be painful and destructive, that would they take
>> too long to have much practical impact, and so on.  However, the
>> behavior I think you are describing would be such an egregious
>> violation of the ways that the community and the IESG should be
>> interacting with each other that I believe a recall would be
>> appropriate even for someone whose term on the IESG had only a
>> few months remaining: it would be at least as important to
>> establish a clear message that the behavior is unacceptable,
>> ever, as it would be to get the person off the IESG.  No one is
>> valuable enough, hard-working enough, or smart enough that the
>> community should put up with the behavior I think you are
>> describing, even for a minute.    And that implies to me that
>> there should be no perception that an AD can get away with it.
>>
>>      john
>
> Now, backing off a few billion nanometers, When Michael kicked off this 
> thread, his posting began:
>
>> So what occurs to me is that a reasonable question to ask is whether
>> there are some legitimate success stories where a DISCUSS has actually
>> found big or reasonably big problems with a protocol that would have
>> wreaked havoc had they not been caught. I ask because ...
>
> My impression is that drafts that capture experience with IETF working 
> group dynamics are painful and useful (thinking specifically of the case 
> studies in the draft that became http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3669.txt). I 
> think Michael's question is important enough to answer. I think I can 
> think of some examples where the answer is "yes", but this isn't about 
> what *I* think, it's about what our experience has been.
>
> Do other people think that collecting DISCUSS success stories is helpful?
>
> I have two points to add -
>
> - Michael asked specifically about SUCCESS stories. The level of cynicism 
> in the circles I run being sufficiently high, I'm asking about the same 
> thing Michael is asking about, where "success" matches the dictionary 
> definition.
>
> - if people want to collect DISCUSS "success" stories, of the more ironic 
> nature, I ask that we do this, going forward, and not looking backward. 
> Depending on how you count Jon Peterson, we seated new ADs for almost half 
> the IESG last year, and we know that we will pick up at least a few more 
> new ADs this year, because some people have already said they will not 
> return. We don't need to replay 30 years of history, and even going back 
> to the beginning of ID tracker use would be less than helpful.
>
> If you have relevant deep dirt from the recent past, please feel free to 
> file recalls and provide NomCom input, of course. But I hope everyone 
> already knows that.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Spencer
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 

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

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 15:53:45 -0000

As often, Spencer speaks sense.

By the way, would it be possible for all DISCUSSes and COMMENTs for I-Ds 
originated by a working group to be *automatically* copied to the mailing 
list of the working group? The reasons are:
- the WG chairs, editors, and interested parties should
   not have to monitor the I-D tracker to spot them
- there is otherwise no automatic archiving of the
   follow-up discussions
- it can often be hard to tell from the record
  how/if/why a DISCUSS was cleared (the entries in
  the I-D tracker do not usually show this information)
- the WG has an obvious interest in the follow-up
   discussions
- if the discussions result in changes to the I-D the
  WG really needs to be kept in the loop

Not sure who should own this, but typically ADs have told me that it is "not 
necessary". (The I-D tracker has a Web page for making suggestions, so I 
have pasted this email there.)

Cheers,
Adrian

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 10:09 PM
Subject: When is a DISCUSS really a discussion?

> One thing I've noticed in sitting quietly and typing IESG telechat 
> narrative minutes is that a DISCUSS is a living thing.
>
> - Sometimes a single AD's DISCUSS text changes - maybe more than once. So 
> to talk about "<insert name here>'s DISCUSS on ip-over-hamsters" isn't 
> always precise.
>
> - Sometimes a DISCUSS starts out as a really big DISCUSS, that becomes a 
> big COMMENT and a short DISCUSS. There are IESG members who challenge 
> specific points of a DISCUSS - not sure I've heard all of them do it, but 
> it's pretty common.
>
> COMMENT. Sometimes a DISCUSS becomes a COMMENT because the AD couldn't 
> cast the 11th DISCUSS on one document ("not a good use of AD time").
>
> There are certainly other paths through the maze to the cheese, but you 
> get my drift.
>
> (amazingly high) number of documents that collect DISCUSS ballots, and 
> focus on documents that don't clear DISCUSS in two (or some other small 
> number of) telechat cycles.
>
> have a problem that takes more than a few minutes to work out. You may, 
> but that's where we should focus.
>
> The way it usually works is, Amy says, "there are X DISCUSS ballots, 
> <insert AD's name here>, do we need to DISCUSS them today?", and the lucky 
> AD says one of a few things:
>
> - "yes", but the ADs talk and figure out that the point of concern is not 
> a real concern at all, so the DISCUSSing AD clears, or
>
> - "yes", but the ADs talk and figure out what the real issue is, and how 
> to solve it, usually terminating in "if that happens, I'll clear my 
> DISCUSS" (note that the sponsoring AD usually asks the DISCUSSing AD to 
> hold the DISCUSS until it's addressed, just so the sponsoring AD doesn't 
> misplace it - this isn't a lack of trust), or
>
> needs to make some decisions (the ADs do suggest RFC-Editor notes on 
> calls, but this isn't common and isn't usually more than two or three 
> lines of text), so the document goes for AD followup, or
>
> Until that happens, I'm OK with most of the interactions that happen on 
> the telechat, and I suspect others would be, too.
>
> But I'd like to focus on the documents that just hang. There are some. 
> They aren't a large percentage of the documents that appear on each 
> telechat agenda.
>
> home page. If you think they are useful, please say so - and then 
> volunteer as a scribe, because Brian has been asking for more volunteers 
> for a while now. If you think they are not useful, Brian, and his 
> replacement, would love to know that, because both Marshall and I have 
> things we aren't doing, because we're scribing for the IESG.
>
>> Depending on how you count Jon Peterson, we seated new ADs for almost 
>> half the IESG last year, and we know that we will pick up at least a few 
>> more new ADs this year, because some people have already said they will 
>> not return. We don't need to replay 30 years of history, and even going 
>> back to the beginning of ID tracker use would be less than helpful.
>>

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 11:17:23 +0100

"Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]> writes:

> By the way, would it be possible for all DISCUSSes and COMMENTs for
> I-Ds originated by a working group to be *automatically* copied to the
> mailing list of the working group? The reasons are:

I agree, something along those steps seems quite useful.  My
experience is that not all of the people who have an interest in a
document reads and thinks about DISCUSS/COMMENT's.  In some cases, I
recall that COMMENTs were not even forwarded to me as document author,
I had to find them in the I-D tracker myself.  I think this has
changed now, but doing what you suggest would go even further to make
sure that the IESG comments are widely seen and thought about.

/Simon

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 08:08:59 +0100

Agreement, but niggles....

As Spencer has noted, a DISCUSS often passes through several iterations 
from the time a concern is raised to the time it's clear what has to be 
discussed with the WG. I think it would make the IESG's work more difficult 
if every iteration of such DISCUSSes were copied to the WG.

If formulated as a notification at a convenient place in the procedure, for 
instance "1 day after a telechat, the current status of all ballots 
discussed that still have DISCUSSes get copied to the WG", I think it would 
be more useful than "the WG gets copies of every iteration".

As a completely random example, draft-ietf-ipv6-over-ppp-v2-02 currently 
has 2 DISCUSSes. The tracker log shows 4 entered DISCUSSes (some revisions) 
and 6 COMMENTs - 10 mails to the WG mailing list seems excessive, while 1 
mail seems more likely to be seen as useful.

                    Harald

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 11:08:53 +0100

The I-D tracker provides a handy button for the DISCUSSing AD
to forward the DISCUSS to parties outside the IESG - normally
by default it's the WG Chairs. I'm not convinced personally
that sending the raw DISCUSS to the whole WG is the correct answer.
Sometimes it can be quickly resolved (for example if it's a technical
typo, or a simple misconception by the discussing AD). Other times,
it definitely does need WG discussion. I think it's best to leave
this in the hands of the WG chairs to decide case-by-case.

    Brian

On 2007-01-08 08:08, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> discussed with the WG. I think it would make the IESG's work more 
> difficult if every iteration of such DISCUSSes were copied to the WG.
> 
> If formulated as a notification at a convenient place in the procedure, 
> for instance "1 day after a telechat, the current status of all ballots 
> discussed that still have DISCUSSes get copied to the WG", I think it 
> would be more useful than "the WG gets copies of every iteration".
> 
> has 2 DISCUSSes. The tracker log shows 4 entered DISCUSSes (some 
> revisions) and 6 COMMENTs - 10 mails to the WG mailing list seems 
> excessive, while 1 mail seems more likely to be seen as useful.
> 
>                    Harald
>

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 11:03:00 -0000

Brian,

> by default it's the WG Chairs.

Brian, I am not suggesting that IESG has to do anything different. Let them 
continue to raise their DISCUSSes through the I-D tracker. It is the right 
tool for the job.

But note that the current version of the tracker does not raise the DISCUSS 
with anyone. It simply logs it.

Let us at least start by having all DISCUSSes and COMMENTS automatically 
forwarded to the WG chairs. These notes arrive in the tracker at 
pseudo-random times and it must be a very diligent chair that spots them 
all.

If we don't do this then they simply are not DISCUSSes. They are just 
post-it notes.

But regardless of this, I am concerned that the resolution of a DISCUSS is 
not archived anywhere. If you want to restrict the DISCUSS from reaching the 
WG unless the WG chair decides, then you MUST log the resolution (not just 
the fact of reslution) of each DISCUSS in the I-D tracker.

> I'm not convinced personally
> typo, or a simple misconception by the discussing AD).

In which case, no damage done by sending it to the WG?
A slight increase in traffic on the mailing list. So what?

And, do you assume that the WG chair is the best person to resolve these 
simple issues? The chair may also suffer from the same simple misconception 
resulting in the wrong thing happening to the I-D.

> Other times,

Well, assuming that the DISCUSS arrives at the WG chair as an email, this 
might be a reasonable compromise. But it seems like make-work to me.

Harald said...

>> difficult if every iteration of such DISCUSSes were copied to the WG.

Hmmm. Would this work be more difficult because of the very large flood of 
email responses that would be generated? (I don't think this would happen 
with any of the WGs I follow!)

Or is there some other reason? It can't be a matter of politics or fear of 
being out-spoken because the DISCUSS is public domain anyway.

>> excessive, while 1 mail seems more likely to be seen as useful.

I completely disagree! The WG needs to know that it is completing last call 
on I-Ds that are not making it through review smoothly. How else will the WG 
improve its output?

Looking at this particular I-D, the I-D tracker seems to be being used for 
conversations between IESG members. A bit odd, perhaps?

Adrian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 13:33:24 +0100

On 2007-01-08 12:03, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Brian, I am not suggesting that IESG has to do anything different. Let 
> them continue to raise their DISCUSSes through the I-D tracker. It is 
> the right tool for the job.
> 
> But note that the current version of the tracker does not raise the 
> DISCUSS with anyone. It simply logs it.
> 

Indeed. And that's what I was saying - the AD registering a DISCUSS has
a button to press that does exactly that (+/- some UI details). I was under
the impression that all ADs do that, except for very unusual cases.

> But regardless of this, I am concerned that the resolution of a DISCUSS 
> is not archived anywhere. If you want to restrict the DISCUSS from 
> reaching the WG unless the WG chair decides, then you MUST log the 
> resolution (not just the fact of reslution) of each DISCUSS in the I-D 
> tracker.

Well, there are really only three main ways a DISCUSS gets resolved:
1. The AD withdraws it
2. The I-D gets updated
3. A Note to the RFC Editor is inserted in the tracker

(There are certainly corner cases beyond those, but those are
the large majority). These are all tracked events. What we don't
have is a comment added to the DISCUSS saying "resolved by
version -17" or whatever. Is that needed?

> A slight increase in traffic on the mailing list. So what?

I think you will find a variety of opinion on that.
> simple issues? The chair may also suffer from the same simple 
> misconception resulting in the wrong thing happening to the I-D.

But the WG Chair is the PROTO shepherd and does have responsibility.
> Well, assuming that the DISCUSS arrives at the WG chair as an email, 
> this might be a reasonable compromise. But it seems like make-work to me.
> 
> Harald said...
> 
>>> As Spencer has noted, a DISCUSS often passes through several 
>>> iterations from the time a concern is raised to the time it's clear 
>>> what has to be discussed with the WG. I think it would make the 
>>> IESG's work more difficult if every iteration of such DISCUSSes were 
>>> copied to the WG.
> 
> Hmmm. Would this work be more difficult because of the very large flood 
> of email responses that would be generated? (I don't think this would 
> happen with any of the WGs I follow!)
> 
> Or is there some other reason? It can't be a matter of politics or fear 
> of being out-spoken because the DISCUSS is public domain anyway.
> 
>>> If formulated as a notification at a convenient place in the 
>>> procedure, for instance "1 day after a telechat, the current status 
>>> of all ballots discussed that still have DISCUSSes get copied to the 
>>> WG", I think it would be more useful than "the WG gets copies of 
>>> every iteration".
>>>
>>> As a completely random example, draft-ietf-ipv6-over-ppp-v2-02 
>>> currently has 2 DISCUSSes. The tracker log shows 4 entered DISCUSSes 
>>> (some revisions) and 6 COMMENTs - 10 mails to the WG mailing list 
>>> seems excessive, while 1 mail seems more likely to be seen as useful.
> 
> I completely disagree! The WG needs to know that it is completing last 
> call on I-Ds that are not making it through review smoothly. How else 
> will the WG improve its output?
> 
> Looking at this particular I-D, the I-D tracker seems to be being used 
> for conversations between IESG members. A bit odd, perhaps?

Well, it puts that conversation on the public record.

    Brian

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 18:33:14 -0000

> version -17" or whatever. Is that needed?

Not sure if that is needed.
What I am interested in seeing is a record of what the resolution of the 
DISCUSS was (i.e. the technical substance of the resolution). Thus, using 
your examples,
1. Why did the AD withdraw the DISCUSS?
   Was some information forthcoming that made it clear?
   Was the AD brow-beaten into submission?
2. What updates were made to the I-D to address this
   particular DISCUSS? (It does not follow that all changes
   to the I-D were in response to this DISCUSS.) And why
   were these changes suitable to address the DISCUSS?
3. Are notes to the RFC Editor inserted in the I-D tracker?
   I certainly haven't seen them there in the past.
   In any case, we would still like to see why this note to the
   RFC Editor is suitable to address the DISCUSS.

In short, we want some record of the discussions that lead to a change (any 
change) to a draft that has completed Working Group last call and completed 
IETF last call. It is not that we do not trust the combination of IESG, WG 
chairs and document Editors to make these changes and refer back to the WG 
when necessary. It is that we cannot see what changes were made and the 
associated whys.

I am still finding it hard to see why this should not be in more open view 
of the working group.

> I think you will find a variety of opinion on that.

Not expressed on this mailing list so far.

> But the WG Chair is the PROTO shepherd and does have responsibility.

The PROTO shepherd has this responsiblity and may be the WG chair?

So the WG chair is falible. Isn't that a good reason to allow the community 
to see the conversation?

>>>> (some revisions) and 6 COMMENTs - 10 mails to the WG mailing list seems 

Yes. That is true.
How about allowing PROTO shepherds to post to the I-D tracker?

Adrian

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 20:09:58 +0100

>    I certainly haven't seen them there in the past.

It's at the end of the "IESG evaluation record".  There you'll
find a draft of the approval announcement, and that contains
Note to RFC editor + IESG note + IANA note (if any), example:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=2253

>    In any case, we would still like to see why this note to
>    the RFC Editor is suitable to address the DISCUSS.

If the discussion triggered by a DISCUSS in in private mails
or on the WG list you won't find it in the tracker.  But you
see *_when_* it was cleared, so if there's a new I-D between
the DISCUSS and the updated ballot it's probably related.

BTW, the new "last call" boilerplate is better, thanks to
(wild guess) Lisa.  Among other improvements it has a link
to the draft tracker.

> The PROTO shepherd has this responsiblity and may be the

Yes, they're supposed to watch the tracker and report issues
to the WG and/or authors.  Of course the responsible AD is
free to shepherd the procedure directly.  The shepherds also
check that RFC editor + authors don't introduce substantial
modifications in AUTH48 (the last weak point in this maze -
but IMO the most critical point is the "Note to RFC editor",
apparently we're supposed to check this step and to cry foul
a.s.a.p., ideally before the approval is published).

> How about allowing PROTO shepherds to post to the I-D tracker?

Can't they ?  At least the questionnaire (modulo 1F) is posted.

Frank

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 11:34:50 +0100

> How about allowing PROTO shepherds to post to the I-D tracker?

See whether draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-tracker-ext-01.txt
covers what you want. If not, immediately would be
a very good time to tell the PROTO team.

     Brian

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 12:52:16 +0100

> DISCUSS with anyone. It simply logs it.

I agree, and think this is an important observation.

This lack of communication may cause friction.  IESG members raise
issues, which ends up the tracker, and for which they might not
receive any response at all on.  They may get the impression that the
document author is inactive and not following up on problems raised
(at least I would get that impression if I were preparing comments on
others' document).  The document author instead wonders why no
comments or questions are generated by the IESG evaluation process.

Having notification for these issues may avoid some of that friction,
and would lead to better documents.  I am inclined to agree with
Harald that excessive notifications, for every DISCUSS/COMMENT may be
annoying.  On the other hand, for most WG's, sending a document to the
IESG is an important step, and any feedback from that process should
be important and valuable.  Anyway, reducing the number of e-mails by
waiting a week or two before compiling a message with all
DISCUSS/COMMENTS seems like a good idea.

Btw, I personally first discovered the I-D tracker when I was revising
a document that had failed IETF last call before, and found
COMMENT/DISCUSS for my earlier document, which I had not been aware of
before.  I believe taking care of those COMMENT/DISCUSS'es helped the
document pass the second IETF last call.

> But regardless of this, I am concerned that the resolution of a
> DISCUSS is not archived anywhere. If you want to restrict the DISCUSS
> from reaching the WG unless the WG chair decides, then you MUST log
> the resolution (not just the fact of reslution) of each DISCUSS in the
> I-D tracker.

It would be good to log resolutions, yes.  If for no other reasons,
someone who reads the I-D tracker history for a document may wonder
what the answer to a particular question was.

/Simon

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:30:12 -0500

> comments or questions are generated by the IESG evaluation process.

This indicates a failure on the part of the document shepherd, who is 
responsible for fostering that communication and for following up to make 
sure issues are resolved, and who _does_ get email for every tracker state 
change.

-- Jeff

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:30:12 -0500

-- Jeff

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:28:22 -0500

> If we don't do this then they simply are not DISCUSSes. They are just

Not true.  Remember that DISCUSS is a ballot position.  As I understand it 
from my conversation with an IESG member several years ago, its meaning is 
"I think there is an issue the IESG needs to discuss".  As Spencer 
described, in many cases the resulting discussion satisfies the concerns of 
that IESG member, and the ballot position is changed to something else. 
Sometimes that happens prior to the telechat - if the issue is "I don't 
think we can paint the walls bright black", the sponsoring AD may reply out 
of band and say "yes, but the document says to paint them bright _blue_", 
and the issue is resolved even before the telechat.

So, in many cases the WG does not need to be involved in such a discussion.
Copying the WG on every such note would only generate confusion and invite 
people to start arguing in situations where doing so is premature and 
wasteful.

That said, I _do_ wish the tracker would maintain history of DISCUSS and 
COMMENT comments, instead of only showing the latest ballot text.

-- Jeff

DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
	Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:28:23 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:28:22 -0500
From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
To: Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>,
	Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>,
	Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Originator-Info: login-token=Mulberry:01DJOZn3b7DhNY3hEgPxHJDqMF0MqTxxJ5CMcEQhM=;
	token_authority=[email-masked]
Cc: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>, [email-masked],
	Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes

> If we don't do this then they simply are not DISCUSSes. They are just

Not true.  Remember that DISCUSS is a ballot position.  As I understand it 
from my conversation with an IESG member several years ago, its meaning is 
"I think there is an issue the IESG needs to discuss".  As Spencer 
described, in many cases the resulting discussion satisfies the concerns of 
that IESG member, and the ballot position is changed to something else. 
Sometimes that happens prior to the telechat - if the issue is "I don't 
think we can paint the walls bright black", the sponsoring AD may reply out 
of band and say "yes, but the document says to paint them bright _blue_", 
and the issue is resolved even before the telechat.

So, in many cases the WG does not need to be involved in such a discussion.
Copying the WG on every such note would only generate confusion and invite 
people to start arguing in situations where doing so is premature and 
wasteful.

That said, I _do_ wish the tracker would maintain history of DISCUSS and 
COMMENT comments, instead of only showing the latest ballot text.

-- Jeff

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:38:47 -0500

> Can't they ?  At least the questionnaire (modulo 1F) is posted.

Not at present.  The writeup is posted by whoever processed the shepherd's 
request  for publication (to iesg-secretary, which AFAIK is an RT queue). 
Further changes are generally made as necessary and appropriate by the IESG 
secretary, the AD who placed a DISCUSS, or the sponsoring AD, who is 
supposed to be copied on all of the shepherd's communication regarding the 
document.

IIRC, there ws a plan at least at one time to provide greater access to 
shepherds, such as the ability to post comments on one of their documents 
and perhaps even make certain state changes.  However, the tracker's access 
control model was somewhat primitive.

There is work in progress (requirements-gathering appears to be nearly 
complete) to extend the tracker to provide WG chairs with tools to track 
documents while they are still in the hands of the working group.  I expect 
this will require extending the access control model, so perhaps when 
that's done we'll see enhanced access for shepherds.  Anyone from the tools 
team want to comment on this?

-- Jeff

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 09:02:00 +0100

--On 12. januar 2007 00:28 -0500 Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]> wrote:

> COMMENT comments, instead of only showing the latest ballot text.
it does - every version of a DISCUSS or a COMMENT is stored in the document 
event log, conveniently marked with *DISCUSS* or *COMMENT* in red.

            Harald

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 11:15:12 +0100

Hi Jeff,

> team want to comment on this?

You're right above, both on the requirements gathering for chair access to
the tracker, and on the refinement of the access control model this will
require.  

Once this is in place, it should be fairly straightforward to provide enhanced
access for shepherds too; but explicit work on this has not been started, and
before starting it I'd say we need to decide that this is work that should be
done.  (It is possible that the simplest resolution in cases where the shepherd
is not a chair is to give the shepherd the same access rights as a chair.)

	Henrik

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:38:11 +0100

Henrik Levkowetz wrote:

> It is possible that the simplest resolution in cases where the shepherd
> is not a chair is to give the shepherd the same access rights as a chair.

Hi, do you mean s/Chair/AD/ here ?  

Frank

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 15:09:47 +0100

Hi Frank,

> Hi, do you mean s/Chair/AD/ here ?

No.  The way I see it, Shepherd 'write' rights would be a subset of the
Chair rights, which will be a subset of the AD rights.

	Henrik

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 15:37:50 +0100

> Chair rights, which will be a subset of the AD rights.

Why should WG Chairs - if they're not proto-shepherds - have write
access
on the I-D tracker at all ?  A proto-shepherd needs similar access
rights
as a "traditional" shepherd - minus posting the approval on the announce
list.  Probably I'm just confused, that's how I understood the concept
so
far:

Normally the responsible AD (one of the area ADs) is the shepherd.  One
of
the WG Chairs can be nominated as proto shepherd (the Chairs toss a coin
or similar).  If the responsible AD doesn't want to delegate this task
he
or she is the shepherd, and there's no problem with write access right.

Otherwise the nominated Chair is the proto shepherd and needs write
access
for certain actions (enter last call, post questionnaire, initiate
ballot,
etc.)  But not participate in the ballot, and not post the approval.

With that I'd get "Chair rights" as subset of "proto shepherd rights",
not
the other way around.  Actually I get no "Chair rights" at all appart
from
read access like everybody else.

Frank

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 16:09:32 +0100

Hi Frank,

on 2007-01-12 15:37 Frank Ellermann said the following:
> Why should WG Chairs - if they're not proto-shepherds - have write access
> on the I-D tracker at all ?  A proto-shepherd needs similar access rights
> list.

You're looking at this from the perspective of the document shepherding
only.  The chair access to the tracker is about more than this.  The best
is probably to point to the draft regarding this proposed extension of the
tracker:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-tracker-ext

(There's a snapshot of the current working copy available too, which has some
changes based on recent discussion on the proto and wgchairs lists:
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/proto/draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-tracker-ext/draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-tracker-ext-02.b.txt )

>  Probably I'm just confused, that's how I understood the concept so
> far:
> 
> Normally the responsible AD (one of the area ADs) is the shepherd.  One of
> or similar).  If the responsible AD doesn't want to delegate this task he
> Otherwise the nominated Chair is the proto shepherd and needs write access
> for certain actions (enter last call, post questionnaire, initiate ballot,

Right.  Those are restricted actions.

> With that I'd get "Chair rights" as subset of "proto shepherd rights", not
> the other way around.  Actually I get no "Chair rights" at all appart from

Right, except for the broader perspective when you regard chair tasks
outside of shepherding.

	Henrik

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 16:04:08 -0500

Let me ask a silly question here: Why do we want to distinguish proto
shepherds from chairs?  I at least hope all my WGs will produce
documents.  That means most of my chairs will be proto shepherds.
Does the difference matter?

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 22:37:17 +0100

Hi Sam,

> Does the difference matter?

Since I'm in the To: list of your mail, I'm a bit baffled by your
question; my proposed solution in my earlier message to the list
was to not make a difference between the two...

Still, if you're asking what could conceivably be the difference,
my answer would be that it's appropriate for a chair to set the
WG state of documents which haven't yet been submitted to the IESG;
while it's (mostly) not appropriate for a Document Shepherd to do
so.

	Henrik

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 14:19:09 -0800

On Jan 12, 2007, at 6:28 AM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:

> That said, I _do_ wish the tracker would maintain history of  
> DISCUSS and COMMENT comments, instead of only showing the latest  
> ballot text.

It does. Click "view details", and you get the substance of the  
commentary.

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 11:32:48 -0000

Hey, I had promised to keep out of this having already used my quota of 
emails for the months, but then Fred said...

> It does. Click "view details", and you get the substance of the 

May be it *could* do that, but this would require that someone was updating 
that entry in the tracker with the historical discussion. AFAIK no-one does 
this. So we just see the original text of the DISCUSS, and sometime later 
something like "DISCUSS cleared".

It would be so useful to be able to see what was done to clear the DISCUSS. 
Hopefully, once shepherd can tend their sheep (oh, sorry, make additions to 
the I-D tracker) it should be possible, although still not mandatory, for 
someone to document the closure (not just the fact of closure) on all 
DISCUSSes.

Adrian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 09:03:21 +0100

On 2007-01-13 12:32, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>>> That said, I _do_ wish the tracker would maintain history of  DISCUSS 
>>> and COMMENT comments, instead of only showing the latest  ballot text.
>>
> May be it *could* do that, but this would require that someone was 
> updating that entry in the tracker with the historical discussion. AFAIK 
> no-one does this. So we just see the original text of the DISCUSS, and 
> sometime later something like "DISCUSS cleared".
> 
> It would be so useful to be able to see what was done to clear the 
> DISCUSS. Hopefully, once shepherd can tend their sheep (oh, sorry, make 
> additions to the I-D tracker) it should be possible, although still not 
> mandatory, for someone to document the closure (not just the fact of 
> closure) on all DISCUSSes.

Adrian,

If an AD modifies their DISCUSS text, or moves a DISCUSS to a COMMENT,
all that is in the tracker. What isn't there is the email trail.
Are you suggesting we should consider capturing all relevant email
threads in the tracker?

Having some experience of RT which does exactly that, I frankly doubt
the value except for archaeologists. But I suppose it could be done,
e.g. by opening an RT ticket for each thread and linking it into the
I-D tracker.

     Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:21:44 +0100

> this in the hands of the WG chairs to decide case-by-case.

The IESG has talked about this a bit (by email) and I think
I'd summarise informally by saying

a) we believe that it is indeed the document shepherd's
job to summarise issues and take them back to the WG, as
stated in section 3.3 of draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding.

b) this doesn't remove the need for as much transparency
and tracking of issues as is practical, via the tracker,
email archives, or whatever tools work best.

     Brian

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:26:38 -0000

Hi Brian,

> all that is in the tracker.

Yes. I agree. *If*.
Some ADs are very good about this. (Shall I name names? ;-)
But some are less good.
Often a Discuss is just cleared.

> What isn't there is the email trail.

Summary is OK in the I-D tracker.

I feel that the email thread would be good to have on a WG mailing list. I 
don't feel that the email folders on my laptop is the best place to archive 
these discussions.

> e.g. by opening an RT ticket for each thread and linking it into the

Too heavy? Too much process?

Why not simply:
- copy all Comments and Discusses to the WG mailing list
- hold all discussions on the WG mailing list until resolution
- update the Discuss or Comment in the tracker to show the
   resolution

A

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:57:53 +0100

> - hold all discussions on the WG mailing list until resolution

Why would we do this for technical typos and other things that
are essentially trivial? I'd expect an AD to enter WG discussion
when raising fundamental issues, but not for straightforward
points.

This is what should, IMHO, be the PROTO shepherd's job to decide
about, as well as consolidating issues when more than one AD
(or other reviewer) finds the same thing.

> - update the Discuss or Comment in the tracker to show the

Actually it would be a matter of adding a new comment, most
likely. But yes, once the PROTO shepherds have write access to
the tracker, that will be something they can do.

     Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:27:02 +0100

On 2007-01-15 17:11, Michael Thomas wrote:
> 
> 
> Michael Thomas, Cisco Systems
> 
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
>>
>>> Why not simply:
>   This seems sort of like a red herring to me: typo posts
>   typically don't elicit much wg discussion in my experience.
>   But please help me here: it seems that DISCUSS as currently
>   instantiated is a conversation between the authors/wg chairs
>   acting as liasons with the IESG. This sets up sort of a
>   representative democracy kind of situation vs. a direct
>   democracy that would be a conversation directly on the wg list.
>   I can understand the IESG's desire for filtering, but that does
>   place a lot of power in the hands of the wg's representatives.
>   And power always begats abuse at some point... is this really
>   what was intended?

Abuse wasn't intended, obviously, but delegation was.

Put simply, ~200 WG Chairs scale better than ~16 ADs.

    Brian

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:40:09 +0200

> (or other reviewer) finds the same thing.
What Brian is saying here is that there is a fair amount
of noise in some of these cases. A fairly typical situation
is that an AD raises a concern by placing a Discuss
but then in the telechat we talk about whether under
the circumstances that is really an issue. Quite often
we end up clearing the Discuss. In any case, it could
be premature to start a thread in the WG mailing list
on "this protocol must do X" before we are sure that
we actually want to demand that.

A good shepherd manages this and takes the
discussion to the WG when its ready. But in case
they forget and/or to assist them, I wouldn't mind
automatic posting of the IESG review results a
a day or two after the telechat to the WG list.

Jari

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 09:26:39 -0800

> stated in section 3.3 of draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding.

This certainly seems reasonable.  Unfortunately, it has two fundamental flaws.

One, of course, is that it introduces the opportunity for the person making the 
summary to get things wrong.  The more generic the AD's concern, the more likely 
this error, I believe.  The wg can then pursue a resolution that turns out not 
to match what the AD meant.

The second is that it permits the AD to offer relatively vague concerns, and 
even to change them over time.  Since the AD has not been required to document 
their concerns fully, there is no history to indicate that something they offer 
later was not in their original Discuss.

If an AD is going to impose the considerable costs of the extra effort by the 
wg, to resolve a Discuss, the AD should be required to fully document their 
concerns, to whatever level of detail is appropriate for that Discuss.  Key, 
here, is to avoid generic statements of concern about reliability, security, 
efficiency, interoperability, or the like, and instead to make specific 
statements about the relevant flaws they see.  That way, the working group can 
evaluate the concerns concretely and can have a good idea that they are pursuing 
a resolution that will be acceptable.

There is also the obvious benefit of transparency, making the AD's concerns 
fully public, encouraging public review, comment, and assistance. In terms of 
ensuring that transparency, the comments need to be circulated to the working 
group, actively, rather than passively posting them on a web page and assuming 
that wg participants know when and where to look. (This can be accomplished 
easily, I believe, by sending a notice, with a link, to the wg when the AD 
comments are created or revised.)

In the current model, any follow-on discussion really is between the Design Team 
and Chairs, with the AD. This introduces the possibility of significant 
late-stage changes that are agreed to by a smaller set than the whole working 
group.  Even for items that are then returned to the wg, the wg cannot see the 
basis for the proposed changes; worse, having this all be late-stage, along with 
the added delay during the effort to resolve the Discuss, stands a good chance 
of resulting in less careful inspection by wg members interested in expediting 
closure.

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
 > are essentially trivial?

At the moment, it's not being done at all. Besides that, the idea that a 
document would be blocked because of a typo, or anything else trivial, is worth 
re-considering.

In any event, why should an AD discuss be subject to less transparency than what 
is supposed to take place during normal working group activities, where folks 
post all sorts of comments, trivial and substantial.?

 > (or other reviewer) finds the same thing.

WG formation is a whole other matter, although the more that is done on an open 
mailing list, the more likely the wg charter will be in synch with community 
desires and needs.

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
 >>>    ...I'd expect an AD to enter WG discussion
 >>     ...This sets up sort of a

Michael's phrasing is quite apt.

Delegation invites errors, whether in the form of abuse or just plain getting 
issues wrong.  The premise of the IETF is that broad-based participation ensures 
adequate review.  Having AD Discusses get resolved primarily by a subset of the 
wg ensures less review and less accountability.

d/

ps.  Meta-point:  There is a consistent tendency to cite an exemplar from one 
side of an issue as justifying a choice by IETF management, when the 
counter-side is just a valid -- and often more of a concern.  I thought IETF 
decision-making was about seeking balance?

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:26:33 -0500

--On Monday, 15 January, 2007 09:26 -0800 Dave Crocker
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> In the current model, any follow-on discussion really is
> between the Design Team and Chairs, with the AD. This
> introduces the possibility of significant late-stage changes
> that are agreed to by a smaller set than the whole working
> group.  Even for items that are then returned to the wg, the
> wg cannot see the basis for the proposed changes; worse,
> having this all be late-stage, along with the added delay
> during the effort to resolve the Discuss, stands a good chance
> of resulting in less careful inspection by wg members
> interested in expediting closure.

Dave,

FWIW, I am, and have always been, much more concerned with this
particular problem of having post-Last Call issue resolution
turn into a private negotiation among a small number of actors,
with the WG essentially uninvolved and unaware, as the most
serious late-stage threat to quality of our output.  The rest of
the issues about DISCUSS generation and tracking are, indeed,
troublesome.  But I believe that, in the vast majority of cases,
they eventually get sorted out, even though they may waste time
and otherwise not be efficient.  I don't want to minimize the
impact of that loss of time, but the private negotiations are,
IMO, what put us at risk of producing documents that really do
not represent IETF consensus (or, in the worst cases, even WG
consensus).

I also wonder, as we fine-tune notification to WGs about Last
Call comments, what we should be doing about documents that are
individually submitted to the IESG (or generated by the IESG)
for publication (on the Standards Track or otherwise). 

The question is complicated by the observation that many WGs
have multiple work items.  Someone with particular expertise
that overlaps one or two of them might want to track relevant
Last Calls closely, but would be unlikely to subscribe to the WG
list to do so.

Perhaps we should make it a requirement that any document that
is Last Called must be associated with a mailing list, perhaps
one whose duration is limited to the Last Call period and any
follow-ups until the document is either published or finally
rejected.  If there were a WG, then the WG list should be a
proper subset of that list, anyone commenting during the Last
Call should be added to it, and others could be added on request.

That is just a quick idea and is probably not the right one, but
I am concerned that we are in danger  of optimizing for one case
--the WG with either a single task item or a set of _very_
closely related ones-- and accidentally pessimizing the other
cases.

       john

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:37:23 -0500

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:26:33 -0500

> Call should be added to it, and others could be added on request.
Actually, I think it's an excellent idea.  Tracking Last Call comments
was always difficult, since the email tended to end up in several
different folders and wasn't archived elsewhere.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:43:50 -0500

Following up on that, I suggest a requirement that any DISCUSSes be posted
to that mailing list, along with conversation/resolution of the DISCUSSes.
I would very much like to see those last steps out in the open.

Only drawback to separate mailing list is that it requires active
involvement to get hooked into the last call discussion...

- Ralph

---

From: "Nelson, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:02:07 -0500

Good issues are being raised.  Certainly there needs to be openness
about any substantive changes in drafts during the IESG review process.

I'm not enamored of the idea of yet more mailing lists to subscribe to,
however.  Why can't we rely on the PROTO Shepherds to do the right thing
with regard to posting DISCUSS issues to the WG mailing list and
collecting WG feedback into the IESG review?  After all, we rely on the
WG Chairs to do the right thing in declaring consensus on WGLC prior to
submitting the documents to the IESG with a request for publication.

Regards,

Dave Nelson

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 12:20:54 -0800

> submitting the documents to the IESG with a request for publication.

WG formation is much like negotiating a contract.  It should be done among the 
principals, not just their representatives.

One of the very big benefits of this will be the creation of a very clear and 
public record of community interest and perspective.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 22:46:14 +0100

> different folders and wasn't archived elsewhere.

I have argued for years that an I-D that doesn't say in its "status of 
this memo" section which mailing list it is to be discussed on is 
incomplete, but I don't seem to have achieved much success for that.

I think all I-Ds should have this - both the first ones and the last ones.

                   Harald

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 23:58:09 +0100

> I think all I-Ds should have this - both the first ones and the last ones.

Ideally the announcement would be also sent to this list, if it's a "known"
IETF list (including the "other lists"), and the submitter identified a
list for this purpose.  Just mentioning a list in a submission does not do
that trick, I've tested this approach.  Apparently it works for WG drafts.

Frank

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:35:12 -0800

On Jan 15, 2007, at 1:46 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> I have argued for years that an I-D that doesn't say in its "status  
> of this memo" section which mailing list it is to be discussed on  
> is incomplete, but I don't seem to have achieved much success for  
> that.

100% agree. On many of my drafts I put in the abstract what list  
comments should be sent to. I also strongly support having the  
information if the draft is intended to be a BCP, PS, Informational,  
etc.

---

From: lconroy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 00:23:25 +0000

Hi Folks,
  as a slight counter to that:
I have had feedback in the past from WGs that it is unwise to include  
the
WG's ML inside a draft intended (eventually) to be an RFC.
The rationale was that the WG (and its ML) will disappear, whilst an  
RFC is forever.

However, an unprocessed/not updated I-D disappears after 6 months, and
that is a lot shorter than the half life of a WG, so your mileage may  
vary.

Maybe ML info should be put inside a note to RFC-ED (i.e. remove on  
approval)
within each draft?

atb,
   Lawrence

On 15 Jan 2007, at 23:35, Cullen Jennings wrote:
>> I have argued for years that an I-D that doesn't say in its  
>> "status of this memo" section which mailing list it is to be  
>> discussed on is incomplete, but I don't seem to have achieved much  
>> success for that.
>
> information if the draft is intended to be a BCP, PS,  
> Informational, etc.

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:36:31 -0500

While not harmful, I'm not sure this is necessary if the more-or-less  
standard naming convention for drafts is followed for non-WG drafts:

draft-conroy-sipping-foo-bar

indicates that the author Conroy believes the sipping WG to be the  
appropriate place for discussion, just like

draft-sipping-foo-bar

indicates the same, without the need to dig through a document. This  
is also a good idea since the WG tools page seems to use the same  
algorithm. Obviously, if there is no appropriate working group at  
all, this doesn't work, but maybe an area indication is sufficient:

draft-conroy-rai-foo-bar

If we eventually get new I-D submissions tools, it seems easy enough  
to enforce such a naming scheme.

As long as mail contains the draft name in the subject line, it's not  
too much a burden for either author or WG to see those comments or to  
search for them.

Henning

On Jan 15, 2007, at 7:23 PM, lconroy wrote:

> I have had feedback in the past from WGs that it is unwise to  
> include the
> The rationale was that the WG (and its ML) will disappear, whilst  
> an RFC is forever.
>
> that is a lot shorter than the half life of a WG, so your mileage  
> may vary.
>
>>> discussed on is incomplete, but I don't seem to have achieved  
>>> much success for that.
>>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:10:10 -0800

> appropriate place for discussion, just like

1. You are missing the amount of overhead involved in mapping the wg name to the 
information needed to subscribe to the working group.

2. You are assuming that the person reading the I-D is familiar with IETF naming 
conventions.

3. Not all I-Ds map to a working group.

If the IETF is to be truly inclusive, it needs to limit the amount of expertise 
required for simple interactions by the rest of the community.  Giving them the 
name of the mail list seems like a pretty small bit of overhead.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 06:40:48 +0100

Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> algorithm. Obviously, if there is no appropriate working group at all, 
> this doesn't work, but maybe an area indication is sufficient:
>
> draft-conroy-rai-foo-bar
>
For a lot of drafts, including those that come before the formation of a 
WG, or those that are associated with a non-WG mailing list, this is not 
appropriate.

Being explicit is good.

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 06:40:48 +0100

Being explicit is good.

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 06:39:27 +0100

lconroy wrote:
> I have had feedback in the past from WGs that it is unwise to include the
That's why I like the "status of this memo" section - it is not going to 
survive the I-D to RFC process anyway.
But I don't think xml2rfc makes this easy at the moment.

[email-masked] Tue Jan 16 00:44:18 2007
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 06:39:27 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
To: lconroy <[email-masked]>
Cc: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Identifying mailing list for discussion (Re: Tracking	resolution
 of DISCUSSes)

lconroy wrote:
> I have had feedback in the past from WGs that it is unwise to include the
That's why I like the "status of this memo" section - it is not going to 
survive the I-D to RFC process anyway.
But I don't think xml2rfc makes this easy at the moment.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:48:48 +0100

Ralph, I think I've already indicated why I (and others)
believe that systematically posting raw DISCUSSes to lists
would be the wrong move.

     Brian

---

From: lconroy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:50:55 +0000

Hi again folks,
  xml2rfc does process the <workgroup>Blah</workgroup> element already.
I assume that this element will be removed/replaced during RFC-ED  
processing.
Thus structured naming of drafts is not needed if the I-D author does  
his/her job.

What is missing is a mapping from WG to the ML subscribe address.
I would have thought that this could be a fairly fixed table that could
be used by a reasonable hack to xml2rfc. If there is a workgroup  
element,
the tied ML address could be auto-generated and placed on the next line.

Note that this does not cover those cases where an I-D is associated  
with
a ML but there is no current WG at that point (e.g. BoF-related drafts).
Text showing the ML would have to be written explicitly into the I-D.
However, any putative ML mapping hack to xml2rfc would cover most I-Ds.

all the best,
   Lawrence

On 16 Jan 2007, at 05:39, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>> Maybe ML info should be put inside a note to RFC-ED (i.e. remove  
>> on approval)
>> within each draft?
> That's why I like the "status of this memo" section - it is not  
> going to survive the I-D to RFC process anyway.

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 08:11:29 -0800 (PST)

meetings, we're encouraged to talk about open issues, which  
> often means that the same three people that have been arguing some  
> angels-on-a-pin point on the mailing list, having lost everybody  
> else, take turns at the microphone, while the remaining 247 people in  
> the audience are paying full attention - to their email. I would find  
> it much more helpful to have the ability to walk into a WG as an  
> interested party that's not on a mailing list and catch up quickly.  
> Interim meetings and phone conferences often seem better suited to  
> that level of detail, particularly for large WGs.
> 
> Similarly, in the plenaries, we rehash NAT and RFC-over-HTML  
> arguments or learn about the number of enterprise numbers that have  
> been assigned. That time might be better spent in giving not just the  
> IRTF slot time, but also any (1) and significant (3) development,  
> with an emphasis on the architectural issues being raised by the  
> effort and maybe an attempt to highlight the big-ticket open issues.  
> Right now, the only time this tends to happen, at best, is during the  
> BOF, which is usually and hopefully too early.
> 
> Henning
> 
> 
>> necessarily interested in the subject area are few and far between.
>> Extra documents don't help much, either, because they're *strongly*
>> resented by WG members who see them as just more process imposed by  
>> the
>> IESG.
>> 
>> I tried several things myself when I was AD.  If I were still AD, I'd
>> keep trying.  But I don't have any new ideas, and I'm skeptical of
>> repeating old ones.
>> 
>> 
>> 

____________________________________________________________________________________
Never Miss an Email
Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile.  Get started!
http://mobile.yahoo.com/services?promote=mail

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 08:11:29 -0800 (PST)

Mike

[email-masked]>
	<005401c73706$957765f0$0a23fea9@your029b8cecfe>
	<[email-masked]>
	<01b001c738b1$43e77e80$0a23fea9@your029b8cecfe>
	<[email-masked]>
Cc: Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>, Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>,
	[email-masked], Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes

 		Mike

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 07:57:07 -0600

What follows is not something I'm suggesting that we talk about anytime 
soon, but perhaps we should talk about it someday.

>> I would very much like to see those last steps out in the open.

My initial connection with the IETF was the result of people (inside and 
outside the IETF) trying to interpret one data point (packet loss) that 
could mean two things (loss due to network congestion or loss due to packet 
corruption) in TCP. For people who have not suffered through this 
discussion - you really can't do it, and the only safe assumption is "loss 
due to network congestion", so the best efforts of our best minds to use a 
binary indicator to mean three different things have failed.

So, when I see a DISCUSS as the only indicator for at least two conditions - 
"we need to talk about this", and "not as long as I'm an AD" - I'm thinking 
we're causing problems for ourselves that we could fix.

I would NEVER say that ADs ballot DISCUSS casually, but I would say that ADs 
do think that a DISCUSS ballot is about having a discussion. ADs ballot 
DISCUSS for a variety of reasons described in previous postings, which can 
include anything from "major NIT - looks like a cut-and-paste in the IANA 
section, with the same value given to two different usages" - all the way to 
"violates basic laws of physics".

Since a document will not advance without the DISCUSS being resolved (there 
are various ways to do this), document editors are a lot more likely to 
freak out when they have a document that collects a DISCUSS ballot, and this 
is not good because people stop DISCUSSing and start negotiating - "my boss 
is waiting to see if I've wasted my on-clock time working on this document, 
what do I need to change for you to remove your DISCUSS?" being one example 
of the problem.

Not all editors fold up like cheap furniture when they see a DISCUSS, but 
some do. That's not good.

At the very minumum, DISCUSSes before a telechat are not as "interesting" as 
DISCUSSes that have persist more than a month after a telechat. The ADs 
really do work to remove DISCUSSes before telechats, and during telechats. 
At this stage, a DISCUSS is probably of interest to document editors and 
shepherds/WG chairs, and probably not of much interest to anyone else.

After the ADs have taken their best shot, if the ballot positions still 
include one or more DISCUSSes, that's really interesting to the entire 
working group, and if other working groups or external SDOs have 
dependencies on the balloted documents, it's interesting to them, too.

But all we know is that the document collected a DISCUSS, unless we start 
reading free-form text, so we can't easily tell how serious the problem was 
for the document.

It is too late to change the way TCP works (believe me when I say this!), 
but it may not be too late to change the way DISCUSS works.

And maybe the new General Area director could think about this, at some 
point.

Thanks,

Spencer

p.s. I had a longer exchange about why DISCUSS was like TCP with Dave 
Crocker in private e-mail. If you don't have a sense of humor, please stop 
reading now...

- We have two problems we want to know about, and how you respond depends on 
the problem you're having, so one indicator doesn't tell you everything you 
need to know.

- TCP is designed to bend over backwards to be friendly to the 
infrastructure, at the expense of throughput.

- the TCP design is specifically not intended to provide timeliness...

- but with DISCUSS, active agents are people rather than cpus, so the small 
matter of human reactions messes things up.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:08:48 -0800

lconroy wrote:
> be used by a reasonable hack to xml2rfc. If there is a workgroup element,

The table of mappings constitutes an on-going administrative challenge.  Also as 
noted, not all I-Ds are tied to working groups.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:36:05 -0500

>
> The table of mappings constitutes an on-going administrative  
> challenge.  Also as noted, not all I-Ds are tied to working groups.
>

But every draft should be able to fit into one of the IETF areas; all  
areas have, as far as I know, area-wide mailing lists. At least for  
TSV, the list has often been used as a catch-all for things that  
didn't quite fit elsewhere.

Setting up a mailing list for each personal draft, with unclear 'note  
well' rules and archiving status, seems counterproductive.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:47:29 -0800

Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> But every draft should be able to fit into one of the IETF areas; 
...
> well' rules and archiving status, seems counterproductive.

You have drawn two implications that I did not intend:

1.  Choice of area often is not straightforward and an author new to the IETF 
often does not know what with which to claim "affiliation".  This reduces to: 
there is currently no requirement for an I-D to declare affiliation and you 
appear expect to change that.

2.  There is a difference between listing a mailing list venue, versus creating 
a new venue for each draft.  I am suggesting the former, not the latter. I-Ds 
often can specify an existing list. I should also comment that pre-wg venues 
typically do not have clear rules and archiving status. While it is worth 
exploring development of guidance for proto-wg lists, I hope that is treated as 
something entirely different from whether an I-D states where discussion about 
it should occur.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:17:30 -0800

> Put simply, ~200 WG Chairs scale better than ~16 ADs.
This rather assumes that the chairs and/or authors are always able
to remember not only the material that is currently before the IESG, but
also the history of how it got there. As an author, it's hard enough to
keep track of the former and the latter is back in the realm of the 
super-human
again. So when you get a DISCUSS which may well involve the intricacies
of a very long and hard slog in the working group where many competing
parties finally agreed to a consensus... how as the representatives do 
you know
whether you are telegraphing the will of  the working group? It's very hard,
and at a late date it is *very* easy to make very basic mistakes again which
not only negate the consensus of the working group, but are potentially
just plain wrong. And that's assuming that there are no agendas, hidden or
otherwise.

So all in all, for an otherwise rather direct democratic kind of 
institution, I
find the implied(?) representative nature of the backend linkages, non-
transparency of process,  and the juxtaposition of a 
fresh-but-disinterested
ruling body next to the inured-but-interested working group sets the stage
for a lot of potential process problems/abuses/surrender-and-ship-it kind of
outcomes. That doesn't seem right.

          Mike

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 21:31:37 -0500

> Does the difference matter?

I guess that depends on how much you want to depend on access controls vs 
people not doing things they're not supposed to.  I believe the process 
admits the occasional shepherd who is not a chair or AD; if nothing else, I 
could imagine a chair who steps down but continues to shepherd his 
documents which are already partway through the process.  Certainly not 
every chair will shepherd every document produced by his WG.

So, a WG chair has certain rights with respect to documents in his WG.  And 
a shepherd has certain rights with respect to documents he shepherds.  The 
question is, is the difference great enough that we can't simply give all 
of those people the same powers, at least with respect to any given WG?

Note that even if we just give all the shepherding powers to chairs, we 
still may need the concept of a shepherd who is not a chair, because I 
presume the tracker will inherit its idea of who is chair of what from 
other sources.  It may be desirable, both here and in other cases, to be 
able to give someone some of the bits that go along with a role without 
actually publishing their name as a point of contact.  Having that ability 
encourages people to delegate authorization instead of giving away their 
credentials.

-- Jeff

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:49:31 +0100

We're rapidly approaching diminishing returns here...

On 2007-01-16 21:17, Michael Thomas wrote:
> again. 

That is even more true for the ADs, who see several hundred drafts
a year on their screens. Authors and WG Chairs are *much* better placed
to remember the history and context than an AD. ADs have to look back
in the tracker and email archives each time they need context.

> So when you get a DISCUSS which may well involve the intricacies

Yes. Which is exactly why substantive issues are to be taken back to
the WG by the PROTO shepherd. Nobody is arguing otherwise, I hope.

> outcomes. That doesn't seem right.

I think you are deeply misunderstanding how PROTO shepherding is
supposed to work.

     Brian

---

From: "Tom.Petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:50:14 +0100

<inline>
Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Henning Schulzrinne" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: "lconroy" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: Identifying mailing list for discussion(Re: Tracking resolution of
DISCUSSes)

> But every draft should be able to fit into one of the IETF areas;

Not sure about the should but the really is that they do not.

One close to my heart is URI which belongs in every area which has a protocol:-)
The practicality is that it is hosted outside the IETF and a recent post there,
relating to a very worthy piece of work, asked how to get this to be an RFC.

Such questions show that we are not doing as well as we SHOULD.

> all

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:44:16 +0100

Steven M. Bellovin writes:
>>  Perhaps we should make it a requirement that any document that is 
>>  Last Called must be associated with a mailing list, perhaps one 
>>  whose duration is limited to the Last Call period and any 
>>  rejected. If there were a WG, then the WG list should be a proper 
>>  subset of that list, anyone commenting during the Last Call should 
>>  be added to it, and others could be added on request.
>

I wish something like this had been in place a year ago. People sent 
last call comments I needed to read to five different lists (IIRC), and 
I subscribed to only to three of those.

But it could be less bothersome than having to set up a specific list. 
Just require that the draft specifies where comments should go and 
mention the address in the Last Call announcement.

Arnt

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:44:16 +0100

Arnt

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 07:41:14 -0800

> I think you are deeply misunderstanding how PROTO shepherding is

That's a pretty basic disconnect.

Perhaps you can summarize how it is supposed to work?

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

 ESMTP id
	l0HFfP93022636
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
	Wed, 17 Jan 2007 07:41:26 -0800
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 07:41:14 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
To: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I think you are deeply misunderstanding how PROTO shepherding is

That's a pretty basic disconnect.

Perhaps you can summarize how it is supposed to work?

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:13:23 +0100

> Perhaps you can summarize how it is supposed to work?

The way it's described in draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding,
which makes it plain to me that the shepherd is taking
responsibility for ensuring that issues are resolved through
open process.

    Brian

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:31:11 -0500

> responsibility for ensuring that issues are resolved through

   I presume Brian wants to call our attention to:
] 
] (3.e)  The Document Shepherd then communicates the DISCUSS and
]        COMMENT items to the document editors and the working group,
]        alerting them of any changes to the document that have
]        accumulated during IESG processing, such as "Notes to the RFC
]        Editor."  If any changes will be substantive, the Document
]        Shepherd, in consultation with the Responsible Area Director,
]        as during other stages, MUST seek working group consensus.

   ("then" is perhaps a bit out of context: see the named document.)
Note the steps 3.[abcd] which precede it.

   I sense a perception that not all of this is happening. IMHO, we
need to avoid the "quick fix" of claiming an automated posting to the
mailing-list can substitute for these steps. Nonetheless, it might be
that an automated notification that a DISCUSS remains outstanding
some number of days after the telechat could help bring immediacy to
the process...

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>

---

From: "Tom.Petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 09:49:33 +0100

Who is shepherd for an individual submission?

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey Hutzelman" <[email-masked]>
To: "Sam Hartman" <[email-masked]>; "Henrik Levkowetz"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Jeffrey
Hutzelman" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 3:31 AM
Subject: Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 11:38:12 +0100

> Who is shepherd for an individual submission?

The sponsoring AD. However, draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines
(which will be updated shortly, so don't worry about
its terminology issues) adds:

    Once the AD has agreed to sponsor a document, the authors need to
    provide a write-up similar to PROTO team write-ups from WGs.

      Brian

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:27:47 +0200

Brian, Tom,
>    provide a write-up similar to PROTO team write-ups from WGs.
In general, the shepherding task falls on the AD if no
shepherd can be found in the particular situation,
such as when the WG chair for some reason cannot
take this role.

For individual submissions the same can be applied.
The situation is a bit more complicated, though, because
for WG submissions we most of the time have a neutral,
non-author person easily available, i.e., the WG chair.
In one recent case an individual submission fixed a bug
in the work of a WG that ceased to exist years ago; nevertheless,
we asked the ex-chair of that WG to act as a shepherd.
If something like that cannot be arranged I'm uncertain
what the best approach is. But in any case, the
AD sponsoring a document needs some background
information about the proposal, so that's why
sponsoring guidelines suggest that the authors
provide a write-up.

Jari