Re: [apps-discuss] New appsawg documents

["Jiankang Yao" <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "t.petch" <[e-mail]>
To: "Barry Leiba" <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Apps Discuss" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:08 AM
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] New appsawg documents


> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Barry Leiba" <[e-mail]>
> To: "t.petch" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "Apps Discuss" <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 8:17 PM
> 
>> >> At least two of these seem to be progressing nicely without any
>> >> adoption by appsawg, so adopting them seems to be a way of making
>> >> work.
>> 
>> I'll add that it's the goal of AppsAWG to help the process, not to
>> make extra work and hinder things.  Without it, the document editors
>> have to make sure the document gets sufficient review, convince an
>> Area Director to sponsor it, and deal with a four-week IETF last call.
>>  With it, the working group is here to review the document, and the
>> document shepherd (one of the chairs or someone we assign) will assess
>> the quality of review, we already have approval from the Area
>> Directors to go ahead, and there's a two-week last call when we send
>> it up.
>> 
>> If the WG is putting undue extra process in the way, we're doing
>> something wrong, and that's something we should discuss.  Let's start
>> by seeing how smoothly a few more documents go (the first two went
>> well, I think).
> 
> Barry, Peter, Murray,
> 
> Thank you for the explanation.  This is sort of my concern, that it makes
> appsawg sound a bit like a factory for churning out RFC as cheaply as possible,
> like some far eastern manufacturer of cotton clothing.
> I want the process of producing an RFC to be challenging, to demonstrate
> that there is support for this as an RFC and that there has been adequate
> review. 
>

You might mix up the definition of RFC and draft.
The draft does not mean that it will be a RFC in future.
Many WG drafts died due to lack of WG concensus or interests after being a WG I-D.
Even if these seven I-Ds become WG I-D after the WG agreements, it does not
mean that all of them will become RFCs. Some of them may die if lack of WG consensus or interests.
As pointed out by Alexey, "APPSAWG chairs are not going to initiate 7 WGLC at the very same moment.".
We will process these possible WG I-Ds one by one before sending to IESG.
On the other hand, if the WG agrees that all of these 7 drafts become the WG I-Ds, it will attract more people to focus on these topics and give them more extensive reviews.(I assume that WG participants are more likely to focus on the WG I-Ds). So from this point of view, we try to attract more WG participants to focus on these topics and give them more reviews.



Jiankang Yao