Subject: RE: [newtrk] My notes from Newtrk

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 06:42:51 +0200

Hi Margaret,

> I think that's a writing style thing.  Perhaps it would be good if we 
> could prevail on an IESG member (cough) to come to our rescue.

Its a writing style.  I think you should review the document and if there
are any clarifications needed, we'd be happy to clarify.
 
> > I would like to understand the answers to the following questions:
> > 
> > - Who is expected to write the ISD text for a document that doesn't fit 
> > into an existing one?
> 
>   It would seem to me that the standard author and the IESG should agree 
> on all normative text within the ISD (and I think John says this), but 
> that there might be some additional non-normative informational text 
> where a looser standard might apply.

My guess is that either the draft editor or working group chair could write
the text.  There is an effort to get the XML prototyped, so that much of
what is needed to be written should be fairly simple.

> > - When is that text written and who reviews it?

> Continuing the model that one doesn't need a WG for every standard, this 
> should be the call of the IESG, but generally WG output w/LC.  Perhaps 
> the ISD changes are included when a component doc is 
> added/deprecated/...?

AUTH48 and the sheparding AD can approve it; unless all of the IESG wants
to sign off on it.  At present, who writes the announcement when an RFC
is approved? Doesn't some thought & text need to be given for that? My view
is that the ISD text could replace the RFC announcement. 

> > - Who is expected to maintain that text as the standard changes?
> 
> I think this falls to the RFC Editor.

My thoughts as well.

> > - Will the contents of an ISD (or changes to the contents) by reviewed 
> > by the WG that produces the standards track document?  By the IETF 
> > community in a LC process?
> 
> Certainly the latter for normative text.  I think ADs should decide 
> about the former.

I agree with Eliot.

> > There are _many_ verbs included in this document (create, publish, 
> > populate, define, generate, omit), but there are very few subjects 
> > included anywhere in the document.
> > 
> > For instance, who is expected to do all of the work outlined in section 
> > 6, "Transition"?  I agree (as it says in the document) that ISDs will be 
> > useless without this work, but I think that this document is equally 
> > useless without some understanding of how all of that work will get done.
> > 
> > I wonder if we are seriously underestimating how much work it will take 
> > to produce ISDs and how long it will take before we have enough of them 
> > that they are a useful source of information for implementers.
> 
> Good question.  How do we answer it?

We can't unless we have some commitment to run this as an experiment and 
integrate this into the process.  I am not going to formalize the experiment,
especially without buy-in from the IESG.  If the IESG is at least interested
in this, then we can discuss how to run an experiment to see how it works,
i.e. - we need running code, which is beyond the authority of this WG to
authorize.

John L.

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