Re: [alto] Adopting two I-Ds as WG documents

> I don't think there is a deadline for objecting to an I-D.

You are correct that objections may come at any time in the lifecycle of
an I-D (and errata can be posted against an RFC).

But it does help to set a "weak deadline" for objections to accepting
these documents as WG drafts, for a few reasons:

1. Deadlines help prioritize effort. If the WG knows that there is a two
week deadline to object (say), then individuals can schedule time in the
next two weeks to read the two drafts
(draft-marocco-alto-problem-statement-05 and draft-kiesel-alto-reqs-02)
and make their own decision: adopt, object, or not offer an opinion.

2. If no one objects by the deadline, then the WG chairs have a good
sense of WG consensus. And it avoids 'voting'.

3. Adopting the drafts as WG drafts is a matter of efficiency. While the
drafts are not 'done', at least they represent the best written
understanding of the WG with regards to the problem statement and
requirements. Non-WG members can see the adopted drafts on the WG
webpage, e.g. http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/alto-charter.html. So
the sooner that the WG chairs can gauge consensus, the better it is for
everyone.

4. If someone's objection misses the deadline, it is not a catastrophe,
as only an RFC is permanently published. Regardless, it would be helpful
to the efforts and direction of the WG as a whole if the deadline was
honored.

-- Rich, a former WG co-chair :)

-----Original Message-----
From: alto-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:alto-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Vijay K. Gurbani
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 2:13 PM
To: Woundy, Richard
Cc: alto
Subject: Re: [alto] Adopting two I-Ds as WG documents

Woundy, Richard wrote:
> I also am in favor of making both items into WG items.

Rich: OK, thanks.

> Incidentally, is there a WG deadline for objecting?

Interesting question.  I don't think there is a deadline
for objecting to an I-D.  Technical dissent and solving
it through consensus is the life-blood of a WG, so objections
can be raised at any point in the process -- pre-WGLC, WGLC,
Gen-Art review, and finally, IESG review.

Even after a I-D becomes an RFC, errata can be filed against
the RFC.  In the most egregious case, the flawed RFC can
be obsoleted with a new RFC.

I must preface in that the above is my understanding, subject
to corrections from the AD or other parties with more
information and experience on the process.

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: vkg@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org}
Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
alto@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto