Re: [precis] Milestones changed for precis WG

"Marc Blanchet" <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca> Mon, 28 March 2016 20:01 UTC

Return-Path: <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
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 5B8FE12D889 for <precis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 13:01:50 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 MoQ_mPu2FogP for <precis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 13:01:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 834EB12D0C2 for <precis@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 13:01:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.111] (modemcable093.65-160-184.mc.videotron.ca [184.160.65.93]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DCFAF47719; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 16:01:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Marc Blanchet" <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
To: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf@jck.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 16:01:47 -0400
Message-ID: <56766496-6ABC-43C1-8A8E-BFF381E47333@viagenie.ca>
In-Reply-To: <B85A8CBE12087A2E41BC3D35@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
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> <B85A8CBE12087A2E41BC3D35@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_B9F158C8-3DDE-4EBC-AAE9-AA3CC8E8A245_="
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.4r5234)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/precis/lhre6NJ_5HYZ2ggw7ASSEwrEZ7A>
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 20:01:50 -0000


On 28 Mar 2016, at 15:50, John C Klensin wrote:

> --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.

disagree. the step from individual to wg is the normal process and has 
no impact on technical work: the technical work can continue whatever 
the filename is. Let’s spend time on technical discussions on the 
content of the to-be-published draft.

Marc.

> 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