Subject: RE: [newtrk] one size fits all vs two-step

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 18:37:30 +0200

John,

> > Well, the IESG approves the charters, but there is usually a
> > dialog with others during that process. Also, when the charter
> > is getting close to completion, I see it as one of our duties
> > as WG chairs to suggest how to proceed (close WG or add new
> > items such as PS->DS advancement). IMHO, it would be wrong to
> > include PS->DS advancement as a milestone when the work item
> > is originally included in the charter. 
> 
> Why?  My assumption, as WG chair, is that closing is the default 
> condition.  Some WGs do have progressing drafts onwards & upwards,
> so that could be at least stated, even if there are not explicit
> deadlines for this.

As it in most cases takes time to develop protocols, it is just
natural that one can not know when chartering a WG what the
situation will be when the WG has achieved its initial milestones.
Of course, ideally, the WG develops a perfect protocol on time,
it gets implemented without any interoperability problems, and
it can simply be advanced to DS, thanks to all the interoperability
reports that can be collected covering all features. However, reality
is not perfect, and as WG chairs we have to take some responsibility
for finding proper ways forward, even in non-optimal cases. Yes,
WG's should be closed as soon as they have completed the work they
were supposed to do, and we should (as long as we have our current
3-step standards track) aim at taking the protocols forward on the
standards track. However, I think it would be better to have this
as a general expectation, while charters should be reviewed and
milestones added when there is reasonable knowledge about what 
should/can be done further on.

So, main point being; we should not blame the IESG for not 
making us progress our standards along the standards track.
It is our collective responsibility, and WG chairs have an 
important role in making that happen.

Cheers,
/L-E

.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: Bruce Lilly <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 16:17:24 -0400

> important role in making that happen.

In many cases, WGs have been chartered to produce one or more Standards
Track RFCs -- these of course start out as Proposed Standards.  Few (if
any) charters when first approved have provision for progression of new
Standards Track RFCs beyond PS.  Nor is there any requirement or
recommendation for production of a set of conformance criteria, either
as part of a PS or as a separate WG work item; not in charters (unless
I missed one, not in BCP 9.

I think that many WGs fail to consider the implication for interoperability
conformance evaluation and specification advancement beyond PS when
formulating an entry-level Standards Track specification.  Yes, WG Chairs
have an important role; I believe that WGs and their Chairs should be
encouraged and reminded to prepare for advancement of specifications from
the initial stages.  That could be facilitated by any combination of:
o including specification advancement in the initial charter
o continuing reminders from the cognizant ADs
o a requirement (or recommendation, if one prefers a lighter touch) that
  each PS incorporate a summary of conformance criteria

I favor the third item as the primary mechanism, because the need to
formulate such a section should serve as a reminder that advancement
needs to be considered, the presence of a conformance criteria section
can be checked easily (and can be crossed-checked with the specification
per se), and even if a WG is disbanded it provides a guide for picking
up the progression effort and/or for separate interoperability testing.
.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html