Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process

[SM <[e-mail]>]

At 08:06 15-05-2013, Keith Moore wrote:
>IMO, IESG should have grounds to reject any document that isn't 
>specifically authorized in a WG's charter.

I read a few charters:

core:
   Dec 2099 - HOLD (date TBD) Constrained security bootstrapping specification
               submitted to IESG
ancp:
   Sep 2010 - Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP) Last Call
   Dec 2010 - ANCP MIB Last Call
   Dec 2010 - ANCP Multicast Extensions last call
   Jan 2011 - ANCP applicability to PON last call
   Mar 2011 - Re-charter or conclude Working Group

6man:
  Jan 2008 - Submit PPP Compression Negotiation specification to IESG as a
             Proposed Standard
  Mar 2008 - Determine way forward for ULA-C specification

l2tpext:
   Mar 2008 - Submit Internet-Draft of PPP over L2TPv3 to IESG
   Done     - WG Last Call on TDM over L2TPv3
   Jun 2008 - WG Last Call on IP over L2TPv3

drinks:
   Apr 2012 - Request publication of SPPP over SOAP Document
   Apr 2012 - Request publication of Framework Document

straw:
   Nov 2011 - Specification for a SIP overload control mechanism based on
              implicit/explicit feedback to IESG for publication as 
Proposed Standard
   Feb 2012 - Specification for a SIP load filtering mechaism to IESG 
for publication
              as Proposed Standard
idr:
   Mar 2010 - Solicit work items for scalability improvements
   Aug 2010 - Submit AS-wide Unique BGP Identifier for BGP-4 to IESG 
as a Proposed Standard
   Aug 2010 - Submit Dynamic Capability for BGP-4 to IESG as a 
Proposed Standard
   Aug 2010 - Submit ASpath ORF draft to IESG as a Proposed Standard
   Aug 2010 - Submit MIB v2 for BGP-4 to IESG as a Proposed Standard
   Nov 2010 - Submit BGP Support for Four-octet AS Number Space 
(revised version) to
              IESG as a Proposed Standard
   Nov 2010 - Submit Revisions to the BGP 'Minimum Route 
Advertisement Interval' to
              IESG as a Proposed Standard
   Nov 2010 - Submit Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP to IESG 
as a Proposed Standard
   Nov 2010 - Submit BGP Link Bandwidth Extended Community to IESG as 
a Proposed Standard
   Nov 2010 - Submit Advertisement of the best external route in BGP to IESG as
               a Proposed Standard
   Dec 2010 - Submit Multisession BGP to IESG as a Proposed Standard
   Dec 2010 - Submit Error Handling for Optional Transitive BGP Attributes to
              IESG as a Proposed Standard
   Dec 2010 - Submit ASpath ORF to IESG as a Proposed Standard
   Dec 2010 - Revise WG charter

pim:
   Aug 2011 - First WG version of udated RFC 4601
   Aug 2011 - Submit a more reliable PIM solution (refresh reduction) 
to the IESG
   Nov 2011 - Submit a population count extension to PIM to the IESG
   Dec 2011 - Submit update of RFC 4601 to IESG for advancement to 
Draft Standard

pkix:
   Sep 2007 - Progression of CRMF, CMP, and CMP Transport to DRAFT Standard
   Sep 2007 - Progression of Qualified Certificates Profile RFC to 
DRAFT Standard
   Sep 2007 - Progression of Certificate & CRL Profile RFC to DRAFT Standard
   Sep 2007 - Progression of Time Stamp Protocols RFC to DRAFT Standard
   Sep 2007 - Progression of Logotype RFC to DRAFT Standard
   Nov 2007 - Progression of Proxy Certificate RFC to DRAFT Standard
   Nov 2007 - Progression of Attribute Certificate Profile RFC to 
DRAFT standard
   Feb 2008 - Update to CMC approved as PROPOSED Standard
   Mar 2008 - ECC Algorithms approved as PROPOSED Standard RFC
   Mar 2008 - Progression of CMC RFCs to DRAFT Standard
   Mar 2008 - SCVP approved as PROPOSED Standard RFC

ippm:
   Nov 2010 - Final version of process draft
   Nov 2010 - Implementation report based on process draft
   Mar 2011 - Revise charter

ppsp:
   Dec 2010 - Submit problem statement to IESG as Informational
   Apr 2011 - Submit architectural survey to IESG as Informational
   Apr 2011 - Submit requirements document to IESG as Informational
   Aug 2011 - Submit PPSP peer protocol to IESG as Proposed Standard
   Aug 2011 - Submit PPSP tracker protocol to IESG as Proposed Standard
   Dec 2011 - Submit usage guide to IESG to IESG as Informational

I did not verify whether the drafts mentioned about left the working 
group or not.  The IESG would be rejecting a lot of documents if it 
looked into what was authorized by the charter.

At 08:33 15-05-2013, Yoav Nir wrote:
>Why? There's definitely a process failure there, and it should be 
>blamed on the WG chairs and/or the AD, who should have either moved 
>the work out of the working group or worked on updating the charter.

There would be a lot of WG chairs and/or ADs to blame as there are 
dates up to five years in the past in the charter extracts mentioned above.

At 07:25 15-05-2013, Joe Touch wrote:
>Well, there are IESG members who stand their ground even when it's 
>incorrect, such as:
>
>         - claiming that determining WG consensus is up to the AD,
>         then repeatedly demanding evidence of that consensus

If there was WG consensus it shouldn't be much of a problem to 
provide evidence.  I read a write-up recently where "strong 
consensus" is mentioned.  I took a quick look at the mailing list 
archives and I saw the WGLC message; the next message about the draft 
was the AD review.

Regards,
-sm