Re: [apps-discuss] New appsawg documents

["t.petch" <[e-mail]>]

----- 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. Asking for approval for seven I-Ds in three days does limit the
likely review, and indeed, I see that one I-D has already progressed
before even those three days are up, but I am not suggesting you extend it.
Rather, I shall think again, perhaps at IETF Last Call, about the process
and how it has served us.

Tom Petch


> 
> Barry