Re: [bmwg] IESG Interaction

[Merike Kaeo <[e-mail]>]

Hi there....

I, as a volunteer author, will fully admit that most of the fault  
with the IPsec documents lies with the authors.  The IESG did work  
diligently in getting comments addressed and for these two documents,  
the other authors bowed out years ago due to varying reasons.   
Unfortunately I had personal reasons (back issues leading to surgery)  
for not finishing the documents from Feb - July this year.

Note that in email, all of the IESG comments were addressed by Jan  
2010 - they just needed to be incorporated into new ID.  All of the  
emails are on record since IESG was copied on all of them.

- merike

On Jul 29, 2010, at 5:59 AM, Snyder, Guy wrote:

> 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:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 8:48 AM
> To: Snyder, Guy; [e-mail]
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> bmwg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg