Re: [apps-discuss] How we decide (was: Re: Call for Adoption draft-ordogh-spam-reporting-using-imap)

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of SM
> Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 11:14 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] How we decide (was: Re: Call for Adoption draft-ordogh-spam-reporting-using-imap)
> 
> At 07:44 12-05-2012, John C Klensin wrote:
> >Looking at this from a personal perspective, the number of active
> >documents in AppsAWG, whether in discussion for adoption, adopted and
> >presumably under development, or in WG or IETF Last
> 
> I would like to know "how we decide".  I don't have a strong opinion
> about the matter though.  It's all fine for someone to say that some
> work is worth doing at a meeting.  I know that a number of people
> saying that will be absent when the actual work is being done.

I haven't spoken to Alexey about this reply, so this is only me speaking.

My answer to the "how we decide" question in the context of AppsAWG is to ask effectively the same questions one would ask about a new working group: Is the problem statement clear, is there a non-trivial group of people who intend to work on this, do we have a good starting point for discussion in terms of at least one draft, etc.  To continue the analogy, the Call for Adoption is the BoF for the proposed work, except that the scale of the work in our context is much smaller and more narrow than would justify a dedicated working group.

In terms of the current influx of work, I believe we're simply clearing a backlog of stuff.  Some of it has been sitting around waiting for admission to AppsAWG for some time; some of it is already-adopted documents that just needed a good nudge to make their way to the IESG; some of it is merely a coincidence of timing.

Our current docket doesn't contain anything that's especially heavyweight as far as I can see.  I suspect the two currently in Call For Adoption will take more work than the current handful of drafts combined.  I'm thus hoping we can progress some of those smaller ones with appropriate diligence but also without any undue delay.

> I posted a few comments about one of the WG drafts on May 2.  There
> hasn't been any reply.  I am going to express my discontent during the
> Last Call.

I think this is a different topic.  I certainly agree that if feedback goes unaddressed, it's up to the document shepherd and the author(s) to make sure that gets fixed, lest it face a DISCUSS later.

> I am not going to "send text" if I get to the discontent
> stage.  Should anyone remind me that it is IETF practice to send text,
> I will say that I am not the one requesting an RFC number.

That's certainly your prerogative, though in my case I would prefer to remain co-operative.  You might not concur with your stance, for example, if the roles one day are reversed.

-MSK