Re: [precis] Milestones changed for precis WG
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Mon, 28 March 2016 19:50 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D759312DB51 for <precis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 12:50:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 XuW-mflGC7ix for <precis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 12:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B240112DB35 for <precis@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 12:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1akdBQ-000GUA-7s; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 15:50:40 -0400
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 15:50:35 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Message-ID: <B85A8CBE12087A2E41BC3D35@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <E5D59850-BE7B-4AB9-863F-E883DA9C4E13@viagenie.ca>
References: <20160301221928.17792.35793.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1C1668EA-1734-4D90-82E6-3894ECB6407C@viagenie.ca> <56D61E27.40000@stpeter.im> <56F96A20.7030509@stpeter.im> <E5D59850-BE7B-4AB9-863F-E883DA9C4E13@viagenie.ca>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/precis/KwrUzpaeNoFpalrDLGboO4IsLT8>
Cc: precis@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [precis] Milestones changed for precis WG
X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings <precis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/precis/>
List-Post: <mailto:precis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 19:50:46 -0000
--On Monday, March 28, 2016 15:28 -0400 Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca> wrote: >> Marc, would you like me to submit these as individual I-Ds or >> WG I-Ds? (They would be >> draft-[ietf|saintandre]-rfc[7564|7613|7700]-bis-00.) > > I'm sure that the wg is likely to be ok with wg drafts, but > let's do the normal process. Please submit first as > individual draft and we will call later for wg adoption. Marc, For whatever my opinion as a participant is worth, that would be meaningless, time-wasting, ritual for its own sake. These are the descendants of WG documents, responding to issues that came up during or immediately after LC. The issues should have been detected earlier (a failing by the WG). At least some of those issues arguably should have stopped the relevant documents pre-publication except that there seemed to be general feeling that is was better to get the documents out and then revisit the issues with revisions. Based on your announcement, the WG has been kept open precisely to deal with that set of issues. Remembering that Peter is the author or co-author of the key drafts being revised, unless you have reason to believe that new drafts that he might create would be so far out of line that the WG couldn't use them as a starting point for discussion, the only things that going through individual drafts and then calling for WG adoption accomplish are to create extra ritual, extra confusion, and more delay in getting to substance. If there really is concern that these documents should be published first as individual drafts, wouldn't it be reasonable to see if you could get formal and substantive consensus (and a collection of committed volunteers and participants) for continuing with the WG? As far as I know, that question has not been formally asked of the participants. Given the extent, depth, and number of participants in the review of some of the documents -- to say nothing of whatever caused the issues that are now the topic of revisions-- it seems to me that a determination of whether you actually have critical mass to continue on a WG basis is a far more important next step than creating a ritual about WG adoption of a set of follow-on and correction documents. john
- [precis] Milestones changed for precis WG IETF Secretariat
- [precis] Milestones changed for precis WG IETF Secretariat
- [precis] Fwd: Milestones changed for precis WG Marc Blanchet
- Re: [precis] Fwd: Milestones changed for precis WG Peter Saint-Andre
- [precis] Milestones changed for precis WG IETF Secretariat
- [precis] Milestones changed for precis WG IETF Secretariat
- [precis] Milestones changed for precis WG IETF Secretariat
- Re: [precis] Fwd: Milestones changed for precis WG Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [precis] Milestones changed for precis WG Marc Blanchet
- Re: [precis] Milestones changed for precis WG John C Klensin
- Re: [precis] Milestones changed for precis WG Christian Schudt
- Re: [precis] Milestones changed for precis WG Marc Blanchet
- Re: [precis] Milestones changed for precis WG Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [precis] Milestones changed for precis WG Barry Leiba
- Re: [precis] Milestones changed for precis WG Marc Blanchet
- Re: [precis] Milestones changed for precis WG John C Klensin
- Re: [precis] Milestones changed for precis WG Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [precis] Milestones changed for precis WG Marc Blanchet
- [precis] Milestones changed for precis WG IETF Secretariat
- [precis] order of operations (was: Re: Milestones… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [precis] order of operations (was: Re: Milest… Sam Whited
- Re: [precis] order of operations Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [precis] order of operations Sam Whited
- Re: [precis] order of operations Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [precis] order of operations Martin J. Dürst