Re: [bmwg] IESG Interaction

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>]

Documents do not expire at 6 months after they are submitted to IESG
review (even if they are such marked in the tracker - this actually
seems a bug). 
 
Dan
 


________________________________

	From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf Of Snyder, Guy
	Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:59 PM
	To: Al Morton; [e-mail]
	Subject: Re: [bmwg] IESG Interaction
	
	

	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