Re: Last Call: <draft-campbell-art-rfc5727-update-02.txt> (Improving the Organizational Flexibility of the SIP Change Process.) to Best Current Practice

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

When I put the summary together, I failed to notice that Harald had sent 
a separate email with more specifics about his feedback. Mea Culpa, and 
the summary entry for Harald's feedback should say "Ongoing discussion".

Ben.


On 27 Jan 2016, at 17:31, Ben Campbell wrote:

> Here's a summary of the last call feedback I've seen so far, and 
> proposed actions:
>
> *** Substantive comments: ***
>
> - John Levine:
> -- Change title to something more relevant.
> -- Update contents to reflect that the ART merge has already happened.
>
> Ben: Title changed to "DISPATCH-Style Working Groups and the SIP 
> Change Process" in working copy. Updated language to indicate the 
> merge has already occurred.
>
> - Richard Shockey: The ART merge was not a good idea.
>
> Ben: It's probably useful to discuss the success or failure of the ART 
> merge, but I don't think it's in scope for this draft. The draft 
> doesn't execute that merge, the update adapts to the it.
>
> - Harald Alvestrand: The dispatch process has had poor results, and 
> should not be propagated:
>
> Ben: I thought dispatch had worked reasonably well for RAI. As it is, 
> the authors do not have enough specifics to propose actions on this 
> comment.
>
> - Jon Mitchell (OPS-DIR review):
> -- Clarify the responsibility for "judgement calls" in section 2:
>
> Ben: I've made the following change in my working copy:
>
> OLD
> Nothing in this list prevents existing working groups from directly
> adopting new work that reasonably fits their charters.  For
> borderline cases, the decision whether new work should start in a
> dispatch-style group, or in an existing group is a judgement call
> among the responsible Area Directors and chairs.  Likewise, in cases
> where an area has multiple dispatch-style groups for different
> purposes or technology clusters, the decision about which group will
> handle a particular proposal is a judgement call.
> NEW
> Nothing in this list prevents existing working groups from directly
> adopting new work that reasonably fits their charters.  For
> borderline cases, the decision whether new work should start in a
> dispatch-style group or in an existing group is made by the
> responsible Area Directors and chairs.  Likewise, in cases
> where an area has multiple dispatch-style groups for different
> purposes or technology clusters, deciding which group will handle
> a particular proposal is up to the responsible Area Directors and
> relevant chairs.
> END
>
> -- The security considerations are not about security in a technical 
> sense.
>
> Ben: While this is not about protocol or network security, it is about 
> the integrity of the standards process. In my opinion, that's 
> reasonable content for the security considerations.
>
> *** Editorial: ***
>
> Fixed several reported misspellings and typos
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ben.
>
>
>
> On 8 Dec 2015, at 9:56, The IESG wrote:
>
>> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to 
>> consider
>> the following document:
>> - 'Improving the Organizational Flexibility of the SIP Change 
>> Process.'
>> <draft-campbell-art-rfc5727-update-02.txt> as Best Current Practice
>>
>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to 
>> the
>> [e-mail] mailing lists by 2016-01-05. Exceptionally, comments 
>> may be
>> sent to [e-mail] instead. In either case, please retain the
>> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>>
>> Abstract
>>
>>
>> RFC 5727 defines several processes for the Real-time Applications and
>> Infrastructure (RAI) area.  These processes include the evolution of
>> the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and related protocols, as well
>> as the operation of the DISPATCH and SIPCORE working groups.  This
>> document updates RFC 5727 to allow flexibility for the area and
>> working group structure, while preserving the SIP change processes.
>> It also generalizes the DISPATCH working group processes so that they
>> can be easily adopted by other working groups.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The file can be obtained via
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-campbell-art-rfc5727-update/
>>
>> IESG discussion can be tracked via
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-campbell-art-rfc5727-update/ballot/
>>
>>
>> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.