IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") side meeting at IETF105.)

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Fri, 05 July 2019 16:31 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BDDF1201EB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 09:31:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kBjmErZ7zNwM for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 09:31:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from brown.elm.relay.mailchannels.net (brown.elm.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.212.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55C511201EC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 09:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54E7B1422FA; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 16:31:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a16.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-92-193.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.92.193]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B468F142013; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 16:31:12 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a16.g.dreamhost.com ([TEMPUNAVAIL]. [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/5.17.3); Fri, 05 Jul 2019 16:31:13 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Callous-Celery: 3634b8a44b108015_1562344273035_1520911176
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1562344273035:3822374909
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1562344273034
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a16.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a16.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48D3A7FA69; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 09:31:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=cryptonector.com; bh=L36Cb1CdMYEEWA E/nBzGvqfXbnU=; b=ShGVCCKJ9Tpr3N2coEQXPVZUDuR4siijmikiKq0TgQa2eG MmUNm2TiAcCsXPV2kgwLitrP4uRYIpElPo8UuKvjD+M47Kw6OJxrDvcB0fcSYR+I MGjdwlceFbqot8HAKTXuzejQzSsFuQYrAMgYZhlGr2vnbgQGp12H9HzU2SlvU=
Received: from localhost (unknown [24.28.108.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a16.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 505AF7FA65; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 09:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2019 11:31:03 -0500
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a16
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") side meeting at IETF105.)
Message-ID: <20190705163101.GJ3508@localhost>
References: <796c1f6c-cd67-2cd5-9a98-9059a0e516f8@network-heretics.com> <20190704013009.dlifopcbm2umnqo7@mx4.yitter.info> <b18809df-ee98-fb29-b6c4-04ed579e163a@network-heretics.com> <20190704052335.GF3508@localhost> <CABcZeBOw6w2tm4YYFdmLwC23ufPDupt2D1Vzwjn4Pi9bbf6R-w@mail.gmail.com> <20190704192057.GI3508@localhost> <CABcZeBMC-VRfea3YqLSs6yhtEq4VtfdO5L56v87KH=vMR4y=+A@mail.gmail.com> <5c9048ef-ba2b-a362-3941-82eacc664b64@mnt.se> <CABcZeBPv8xUMbSt+SDL_X56SBB_CPyBMKZaQMbPd=6M-xT+hpQ@mail.gmail.com> <19233.1562339969@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <19233.1562339969@localhost>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
X-VR-OUT-STATUS: OK
X-VR-OUT-SCORE: -100
X-VR-OUT-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddrfeeggddutdefucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuggftfghnshhusghstghrihgsvgdpffftgfetoffjqffuvfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjfgesthdtredttdervdenucfhrhhomheppfhitghoucghihhllhhirghmshcuoehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhmqeenucfkphepvdegrddvkedruddtkedrudekfeenucfrrghrrghmpehmohguvgepshhmthhppdhhvghloheplhhotggrlhhhohhsthdpihhnvghtpedvgedrvdekrddutdekrddukeefpdhrvghtuhhrnhdqphgrthhhpefpihgtohcuhghilhhlihgrmhhsuceonhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomheqpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhepnhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomhdpnhhrtghpthhtohepnhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/cu-W-lGyTuNHzL-_E2C4KkB5wdU>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2019 16:31:26 -0000

On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 11:19:29AM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Maybe being able to have RFC5288.02 or RFC8446.02 would make it easier to get
> through the rather long post-WGLC.
> 
> While we are pretty good at getting cross-area review now, and getting
> security review early, I feel that there is still too much ("last minute")
> IESG meddling^Wpush back.  It's not that I don't appreciate much of what
> gets fixed, I just wish it got fixed earlier in the process.

At Sun we had inception reviews, interim reviews, and commitment
reviews.  (I'm referring to architecture reviews.)

At IETF we have commitment reviews, naturally, but we only have
inception reviews for WGs and their initial work items, but no inception
reviews for subsequent work items, and no interim reviews.

The only way you'll get currently-late reviews to happen earlier is to
provide a mechanism for that.  That could be as simple as having a WG
chair request an interim review from an appropriate directorate.

Of course, we may not have the directorate cycles for interim reviews,
in which case we might need to improve the directorates.

Nico
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email