Re: One last nit

John C Klensin <klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net> Fri, 17 March 1995 15:37 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03292; 17 Mar 95 10:37 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03288; 17 Mar 95 10:37 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08393; 17 Mar 95 10:37 EST
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03281; 17 Mar 95 10:37 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03275; 17 Mar 95 10:37 EST
Received: from mail1.Reston.mci.net by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08388; 17 Mar 95 10:37 EST
Received: from klensin (klensin.Reston.mci.net) by MAIL1.RESTON.MCI.NET (PMDF V4.3-10 #8388) id <01HO8MU5RGZ4000BKG@MAIL1.RESTON.MCI.NET>; Fri, 17 Mar 1995 10:37:54 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 10:37:12 -0500
X-Orig-Sender: iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: John C Klensin <klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net>
Subject: Re: One last nit
X-Sender: klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net
To: Steve Coya <scoya@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>, Joel Halpern <jhalpern@newbridge.com>
Cc: iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Message-id: <01HO8MW2B3QI000BKG@MAIL1.RESTON.MCI.NET>
X-Envelope-to: iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US, scoya@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

>Hello? Can you say ONCRPC? This WG was referenced in a number of
>messages: The Crocker Challenge, the Declaration of War, etc.

Steve,

Suppose a WG meets and reaches a conclusion.  Because the technology and
environment evolve, that conclusion inevitably, and properly, reflects
engineering evaluations under the circumstances prevalent at the time.  Now
suppose that, for reasons that may or may not be under the WG's control,
processing of the product is delayed for some time, perhaps years.  The WG
hasn't met, the Area in which it operated has been shut down, I presume no
AD was monitoring its work.

In my model of the world, the reason why we distinguish between two-week and
four-week last calls is that the latter permits members of the community who
are interested in the work, but surprised, to come up to speed... while we
presume that the existence of an active WG (note "active") acts as
sufficient "you better be up to speed, something may emerge" notice that we
can use a shorter period.

I can't justify that shorter period on the argument that there was a WG,
once.  It leads down a slippery slope toward two-week last calls on things
going to full standard without WG meetings.
The thing that makes this situation special is that sensible people can
argue that the lively discussions of the last month or so constitutes more
than adequate "you better start thinking about this" notice, so that a two
week review is adequate.

I really don't have a strong opinion.  But I think we need to have a basis
for whatever decision is made and, whatever it is, we need to write the
decision and the basis down somewhere.

   john