Shifting sands [Re: Possible new Real-Time Applications and Infrastucture (RAI) Area]

Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com> Thu, 22 September 2005 12:02 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EIPmB-00047c-Ck; Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:02:07 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EIPm9-00046b-KW for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:02:05 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA24604 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:02:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mtagate1.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.150]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EIPsL-00078h-5J for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:08:29 -0400
Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate1.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j8MC1rOI149422 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Sep 2005 12:01:53 GMT
Received: from d12av01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av01.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.212]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VERS6.7) with ESMTP id j8MC1r8q164878 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:01:53 +0200
Received: from d12av01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j8MC1q7j014360 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:01:52 +0200
Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d12av01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j8MC1qqu014349; Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:01:52 +0200
Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-145-253-141.de.ibm.com [9.145.253.141]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA15798; Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:01:50 +0200
Message-ID: <43329D2C.9090807@zurich.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:01:48 +0200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@sun.com>
References: <1AA39B75171A7144A73216AED1D7478DD65B2C@esebe100.NOE.Nokia.com> <1127332483.127264.30.camel@thunk>
In-Reply-To: <1127332483.127264.30.camel@thunk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 4d87d2aa806f79fed918a62e834505ca
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: john.loughney@nokia.com, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Shifting sands [Re: Possible new Real-Time Applications and Infrastucture (RAI) Area]
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Bill,

Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 14:36, john.loughney@nokia.com wrote:
> 
>>If there was a way to lighten-up the IESG review process, then this
>>would be a good idea. For example, having a single DISCUSS per Area
>>would be one way to reduce this could be one solution. 
> 
> 
> Why do you think this would make any difference in practice?  chances
> are that an AD-pair would agree to hold a DISCUSS if either felt that an
> issue should block publication.

As I have had to remind people of before, DISCUSSes aren't intended to
"block" publication - they are intended to start a discussion with the
authors and WG about how to resolve an issue. If the IESG actually wants
to block a document, it's more explicit and relatively rare.

However, you're correct - an Area DISCUSS would likely be the OR
of the two AD's opinions. And it's impractical, because there is generally
less than a week between a document appearing on the agenda and the moment
when the AD needs to enter a ballot.

> 
>>From my point of view, a far greater source of delay is the
> extraordinarily rapid change in the standards applied to documents by
> the IESG; it seems that, if your document editor is very busy, by the
> time a document is reworked to address one set of editorial standards, a
> new requirement (leading to a new blocking DISCUSS) is likely to appear.

Well, that is why we published draft-iesg-discuss-criteria-00
which includes among the non-criteria for a DISCUSS:

    o  Pedantic corrections to non-normative text.  ...
    o  Stylistic issues of any kind.  ...
    o  There is recent work or additional information that might be added
       to the document.  ...
    o  New issues with unchanged text in documents previously reviewed by
       the AD in question. ...
> 
> seems like we could avoid this sort of logrolling by judging a document
> based on the rules published and in force at the time it was submitted
> to the IESG.

They aren't rules, they're guidelines, in general. However, I largely
agree with you - another reason for the above draft. But there are
surely exceptions (e.g. new IPR rules, a newly discovered security threat)
where currency is essential.

    Brian


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf