Subject: Re: [newtrk] An ISD example - MIXER

From: [email-masked] (scott bradner)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:33:39 -0500 (EST)

Margaret also sez:
> I don't consider this level of effort to be a blocking problem for 
> ISDs.  I just think that if you want to make any calculations 
> regarding the cost/benefit tradeoffs, it would be more realistic to 
> estimate a minimum of 15 hours of author/editor time plus a similar 
> amount of WG/IESG time per ISD than it would be to estimate a minimum 
> of 1 hour of author/editor time.

maybe that is more realistic for the total effort that needs to go into 
a new ISD that deals with one or more already published RFCs. My 
experience in creating the sample ISD for the standards process was 
that it took about twice as long as it took Harald - mostly tracking
down the old protocol announcements) i.e. about 2 hours but the dealing
with the IESG time woudl have to be added - my guess would still be 
about half of of yours but that may not be enough of a difference to
make a difference.

But I think the picture is much different going forward - for
both teh case of a new technlong needing a new ISD and the case of
an existig ISD needing an update I expect the additional effort
to be quite low (one or two hours total) and I expect that it would be 
done by the WG chairs (or whoever creates the IESG ballot and 
I think that should be someone in the WG) and I do not see why
it shoudl take much additional IESG time to deal with (a few more 
minutes with is more than offset by the reduction in work needed by
having the ballot done by someone in the WG)

thus I do not see that there is a big problem that will somehow 
create so much work that the IESG totally bogs down with it

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

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:28:52 -0500

At 9:33 AM -0500 11/23/04, scott bradner wrote:
>a new ISD that deals with one or more already published RFCs.
[...]
>having the ballot done by someone in the WG)

This makes sense to me.  If a WG is required to submit an ISD with 
their initial base protocol specification and to update it as each 
document is published that extends or modifies the protocol, this 
shouldn't create very much additional work.  In fact, it might help 
to cut down on some ambiguities about whether a new document contains 
a mandatory or optional part of a particular standard.  The ISDs 
might even be a little bit helpful to the IESG in figuring out 
exactly how the new document fits with the existing ones.

I think that we could also control how much effort we spend on 
creating, editing and approving ISDs for existing standards...  We 
could develop them slowly over time by including ISD development in 
WG charters when WGs are working on updates to existing protocols. 
Maybe a few will come in an individual submissions, and (in the great 
scheme of things) there will probably be some that are never written 
because some standards are uncomplicated, stable and/or unused.

One thing that I'm confused about, though...  The ISDs that folks 
have circulated look like I-Ds.  And, yet, Harald indicated that they 
would not be published as RFCs.  How would we publish them?  If we 
intend to publish them as web pages, for example, wouldn't it be 
better to develop a template that would be more useful on the web 
(i.e. contain links for the references, less than two screens full of 
non-content at the front, etc.)?  I also think that we should 
consider different boilerplate that doesn't declare that the ISDs 
will expire after 6 months.

This could be handled in somewhat the same way that we handle 
interoperability reports on documents that are going to DS.  Part of 
the publication request process could include submitting an ISD that 
gets posted on an IETF-controlled web page for review along with the 
document.

BTW, would it be within scope for this WG (at some point) to talk 
about developing templates and/or guidelines for interoperability 
reports.  They currently seem to be all over the map in terms of both 
format and content, and that makes it difficult to assess them 
properly.

Margaret

.

---

From: [email-masked] (scott bradner)
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:02:33 -0500 (EST)

> have circulated look like I-Ds. 

they look like IDs so that we would have a way to publish them
for review - if you look at my example you can see that its a 
document in an ID wrapper

> And, yet, Harald indicated that they would not be published as RFCs.

that is correct

> How would we publish them? 

this is a new publication series - my 1st cut is that the
IESG creates a on-line repository (which I trust will get
mirrored elsewhere) and as ISDs are approved they are given identifiers 
and placed in the repository

> If we intend to publish them as web pages

that has been discussed - many of us want an XML file as the formal
document with an ASCII version for readability - specifically that
any web page would not be the base version but could be built from
the XML file

> I also think that we should

unrelated - we (teh IETF) need a way to develop the ISDs that
involves publishing draft versions for discussion - I see no reason
that the draft versions can not be IDs

> Part of 

I'd rather keep all the IETF work in progress in one place (as IDs)

> reports. 

maybe at some point but not now

Scott
.

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 10:37:45 -0500

It does seem natural to publich drafts of ISDs as I-Ds.
However, there is an interesting minor complication lurking there.

Do we expect the working group to review the ISD draft in XML?
Do we expect to have a public tool for viewing IDs as ISDs?
Given that the real form is XML, but the human consumable form is either 
ASCII or a web page, how does the working group work with the draft?

Yours,
Joel

.

---

From: "Alex Rousskov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 16:06:10 -0700

> Do we expect the working group to review the ISD draft in XML?

Yes, if XML is the primary ISD format. Otherwise, one could, say, put some  
stupid comment into XML sources and get that published as an official IETF  
document.

"Reviewing in XML" does not mean that folks would not read an  
[auto-generated] human-friendly format, of course. It only means that  
somebody (or something) should check raw sources as well.

> ASCII or a web page, how does the working group work with the draft?

Just like they are working with xml2rfc-based drafts now, except  
somebody/thing must check raw sources at some point.

$0.02,

Alex.
.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:34:31 +0100

> about half of of yours but that may not be enough of a difference to

I've been wondering about doing a draft ISD for diffserv. I think it
would take about 2 hours to do the first cut - and you'll note that
just as Harald knows something about MIXER and John K knows something
about SMTP, I know something about diffserv.

But I would then expect quite alot more person-hours to be spent reviewing
and correcting it - so I don't think Margaret's estimate of the total
is out of line. I do think the added value for our users is large.
Basically, we'd be saving each of them at least those two hours,
if not a lot more by avoiding false starts.

> having the ballot done by someone in the WG)

I certainly think this should be a duty for WGs in future, and the
effort will get lost in the general workload at that point. However,
don't forget that some ISDs are likely to cross WG boundaries.
> create so much work that the IESG totally bogs down with it

Certainly not. I'd like to see the incremental work for the IESG be
zero or even negative (because it should simplify the process of
understanding how different specifications fit together).

     Brian
.

---

From: Paul Hoffman / VPNC <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:02:00 -0800

>if not a lot more by avoiding false starts.

Fully agree. ISDs for "important technologies" would be hugely 
valuable, and worth at least a few hours time from a few people who 
care about the technologies. If no one cares about the technology 
enough to write the ISD, that says something about the technology (as 
long as we don't make ISDs hard to write for no go reason...)

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 21:14:45 -0500

> long as we don't make ISDs hard to write for no go reason...)

or maybe it just says something about how we get energy to write 
valuable documents.

there are lots of protocols that could use a lot more documentation, 
where the benefit to the user community is unquestioned.  that doesn't 
mean that anyone can be found who is willing to write that 
documentation (and shepherd it through the review process) for free.

ISDs look like a great idea to me - as long as we don't require them.

.