Re: [bmwg] IESG Interaction

"Snyder, Guy" <guy.snyder@icsalabs.com> Thu, 29 July 2010 12:58 UTC

Return-Path: <guy.snyder@icsalabs.com>
X-Original-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21DE228C1E3 for <bmwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 05:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jR7bhucT8hXH for <bmwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 05:58:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ashesmtp03.verizonbusiness.com (ashesmtp03.verizonbusiness.com [198.4.8.167]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27A1F28C155 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 05:58:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omzismtp02.vzbi.com ([unknown] [165.122.46.167]) by firewall.verizonbusiness.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.03 32bit (built May 29 2009)) with ESMTP id <0L6B00989LEGTW30@firewall.verizonbusiness.com> for bmwg@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:59:04 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from omzismtp02.vzbi.com ([unknown] [127.0.0.1]) by omzismtp02.vzbi.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.03 32bit (built May 29 2009)) with SMTP id <0L6B001BGLEGG500@omzismtp02.vzbi.com> for bmwg@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:59:04 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from pdcismtp02.vzbi.com ([unknown] [166.40.77.70]) by omzismtp02.vzbi.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.03 32bit (built May 29 2009)) with SMTP id <0L6B0018HLEGF000@omzismtp02.vzbi.com> for bmwg@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:59:04 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ASHSRV139.mcilink.com ([unknown] [153.39.68.165]) by pdcismtp02.vzbi.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.03 32bit (built May 29 2009)) with ESMTP id <0L6B0004BLEG1F00@pdcismtp02.vzbi.com> for bmwg@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:59:04 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ASHEVS008.mcilink.com ([153.39.69.129]) by ASHSRV139.mcilink.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:59:04 +0000
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CB2F1D.D21C5DF1"
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:59:02 +0000
Message-id: <02C94FA7F698FC4093BA0EED57834E250759CFF9@ASHEVS008.mcilink.com>
In-reply-to: <201007291248.o6TCmVN1012751@klpd017.kcdc.att.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-topic: [bmwg] IESG Interaction
Thread-index: AcsvHGH2VuZYnh4hSo6sB1/jNJ4oCgAAEXiw
References: <02C94FA7F698FC4093BA0EED57834E250759CF65@ASHEVS008.mcilink.com> <201007291248.o6TCmVN1012751@klpd017.kcdc.att.com>
From: "Snyder, Guy" <guy.snyder@icsalabs.com>
To: Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>, bmwg@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jul 2010 12:59:04.0026 (UTC) FILETIME=[D26013A0:01CB2F1D]
Subject: Re: [bmwg] IESG Interaction
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bmwg>
List-Post: <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:58:48 -0000

Forgive me (you and the authors) if this sounded like I was saying the
authors were not doing something. I was just using these two documents
as examples of the many that have expired. I just wanted to understand
the problem and the process that was trying to be solved. I think you
answered my questions. I totally understand your comment about volunteer
time.

 

-- Guy

-- ICSA Labs

________________________________

From: Al Morton [mailto:acmorton@att.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 8:48 AM
To: Snyder, Guy; bmwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bmwg] IESG Interaction

 

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/
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