Subject: Re: Comments on draft-aboba-sg-experiment-02

From: "Bernard Aboba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 15:49:51 -0700

Eric Rescorla said:

"Arguably, SG formation should be subject to an IETF LC in the same way that 
WG formation is."

I would agree -- and it would appear that this is already included in 
Section 3:

  Other than the abbreviated charter, the process for formation of a
  Study Group is identical to that of a Working Group, including
  announcement of the potential Study Group and a request for feedback
  from the IETF community.

"1. It will be hard for the IESG to deny "successful" SGs the right to form 
a WG."

Since successful is in quotes, are we really talking about "failed" SGs?  A 
SG can fail by not completing its milestones in time, and having the AD 
refuse to grant an extension, or it can fail by producing a Charter that 
fails to garner approval from the IESG/IAB, just as a proposed WG might.  
Perhaps we need a statement that the bar for transition from a SG to a WG is 
the same as one from a BOF to a WG?

"Since the point of a
BOF is to encourage widespread input and more or less by definition
an SG has failed at this stage, it seems unwise to allow SGs to
become WGs without a real public vetting stage."

Such a public vetting stage is built in because the SG chaFrom [email-masked] Tue Oct 09 08:54:01 2007
From: "Pete Cordell" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 15:22:10 +0100
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-levin-mmusic-xml-media-control (XML Schema for
	Media Control) to Informational RFC 

I quickly looked at this and noticed that the XML instance examples don't
match the schema because the instance does not make reference to the
namespace.  i.e., to match the schema, the example should be:

   <media_control xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:media_control">

      <vc_primitive>
       <to_encoder>
         <picture_fast_update/>
       </to_encoder>
     </vc_primitive>

   </media_control>

My expectation is that the instance is actually more authorative in terms of 
what the authors are looking for. If that is the case, the schema should be 
modified along the lines of:

   <xsd:schema id="TightMediaControl"
    xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
    ...

i.e. remove the targetNamespace declarations.

You may have your reasons not to, but if not, you may want to consider using 
schema's documentation features instead of the XML comments; e.g.:

<xsd:complexType name="vc_primitive">
    <xsd:annotation><xsd:documentation>
        Video control primitive.
    </xsd:documentation></xsd:annotation>

    <xsd:sequence>
     ...

HTH,

Pete.
--
=============================================
Pete Cordell
Codalogic
for XML Schema to C++ data binding visit
 http://www.codalogic.com/lmx/
=============================================
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "The IESG" <[email-masked]>
To: "IETF-Announce" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 2:29 PM
Subject: Last Call: draft-levin-mmusic-xml-media-control (XML Schema for
Media Control) to Informational RFC

> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
> the following document:
>
> - 'XML Schema for Media Control '
>   <draft-levin-mmusic-xml-media-control-11.txt> as an Informational RFC
>
> The IESG plans to make a decisiorter and other 
documents will be reviewed by the IETF community.

Dan Romascanu said:

"The way I see it the problem that this proposal tries to solve is about
helping the IESG and the community to make a better decision when the
forming of the working group us discussed. It is not about bringing more
work to the IETF, it is about making sure to a better extent that the
right work is being brought into the IETF. "

I agree.  Presumably the SG will enable a more rigorous and complete 
examination of the WG formation criteria already set down in RFC 2418.  That 
should enable an AD to get a better idea of how well a SG would function if 
it were to be chartered as a WG.

Spencer Dawkins said:

"to use the IRTF as a home for WG explorations, in addition to research"

Unfortunately, there are very few examples of the IRTF being used 
successfully for this purpose.  Rather than being a step toward WG 
formation, the IRTF has often be used as a "consolation prize" for work that 
was far from the level of maturity required for WG formation.  Those RGs 
often dragged on for years often with little impact on the IETF.  The goal 
of SGs is more immediate -- for situations where interest already exists, 
but where 6-12 months of prepatory work would be likely to produce a solid 
foundation for a WG.

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

n in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action.  Please send substantive comments to the
> [email-masked] mailing lists by 2007-11-05. Exceptionally,
> comments may be sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please
> retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> The file can be obtained via
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-levin-mmusic-xml-media-control-11.txt
>
>
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=9391&rfc_flag=0
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>

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

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 09:14:29 -0500

Hi, Bernard,

> formation, the IRTF has often be used as a "consolation prize" for work 
> that was far from the level of maturity required for WG formation.  Those 
> RGs often dragged on for years often with little impact on the IETF.  The 
> goal of SGs is more immediate -- for situations where interest already 
> exists, but where 6-12 months of prepatory work would be likely to produce 
> a solid foundation for a WG.

I agree on the history here (not sure I would have said "often", but not 
sure I know enough to quantify).

The IRTF may have the right level of formality and process for 
investigations, but a lot of other attributes that aren't right, and (of 
course) they may not be interested in playing host to these investigations, 
at any rate.

I'm really struggling with the conflict between relatively unrestricted 
investigations and relatively obscure discussions, and I'm not sure there's 
a really good answer.

The SG proposal may be as good as a proposed answer gets, and an experiment 
with a limited number of SGs may be as good a way to find out if the 
proposal works as there is.

Thanks,

Spencer