Subject: [Icar] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-dawkins-newtrk-wgs-00.txt

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 11:31:42 +0200

I think this version is a bit too lax. I think two explicit
requirements should be placed on the draft in section 3.1

A WGS
          a)   MUST have received cross-area review outside the WG,
               judged to be adequate by the WG Chair(s)

          b)   MUST have received rough consensus based on a Working
               Group Last Call

     Brian

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

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 08:57:39 -0800

Brian,

BEC> I think this version is a bit too lax. I think two explicit
BEC> requirements should be placed on the draft in section 3.1

 That is because you want to make the label heavy-weight, witha high
 barriers. This, of course, is exactly the philosophy that got us to
 the current problem with PS.  (It worked so well with PS, let's
 repeat it for WGS?)

 The goal for WGS is to have a label that is in the transient,
 developmental spirit of working group I-Ds, rather than the
 long-term, reputation-of-the-ietf orientation of standards track.

 And, by the way, requiring cross-area review before assigning the
 label is a good way to prevent using the label for coordinating the
 process of _obtaining_ reviews (cross area or otherwise.)

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 15:26:23 +0200

Dave,

>  the current problem with PS.  (It worked so well with PS, let's

No, I don't want to make it heavyweight, I want just enough checks and
balances to prevent egregious results.

>  long-term, reputation-of-the-ietf orientation of standards track.

Indeed. That's why I agree that the consensus to publish a WGS
should be judged by the WG chairs.

>  process of _obtaining_ reviews (cross area or otherwise.)

And that's how it should be IMHO. But again, my suggestion is that
we give the WG Chairs the responsibility --- no process required
outside the WG.

   Brian