Re: [bmwg] IESG Interaction

[Al Morton <[e-mail]>]

At 06:27 AM 7/29/2010, Snyder, Guy wrote:

Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CB2F08.987022E1"

As part of the discussion for the re-charter, it was presented that there was an issue getting drafts through the IESG.  Some examples were the IPsec terminology and methodology. Al indicated that normally this was because the IESG did not agree with our terminology.

Well, the audio record rules, but I didn't say much in my
WG status presentation about these drafts, except that
they had expired while we were waiting for the authors to
resolve the IESG comments. (Later, I think Ron may have
mentioned the IPsec drafts in his motivation to revise
the charter. He cited a general difficulty with the benchmarks
themselves that has caused some problems.)

To see what the IESG really said, which is what matters most,
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipsec-term/" rel="nofollow"> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipsec-term/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipsec-meth/" rel="nofollow"> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipsec-meth/

 So my question is, did the documents stall because authors did not work with the IESG?

Officially, we are still waiting to see revised drafts that
address all the IESG comments.

 Forgive me, but I don’t understand totally how this process works and how changes/fixes could have happened that would have satisfied the IESG so the documents did not expire.

We simply needed the revisions to be made sooner, but we are a
volunteer organization and the volunteers can only help us
when they have the time and energy...

Al