Re: [regext] [Ext] regarding adopting new documents and milestones

[Andrew Newton <[e-mail]>]

Perhaps priority should be given to those I-Ds with running code.

-andy
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 12:41 PM Adam Roach <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> [as Area Director]
>
> Hi!
>
> While I appreciate that the proposal you've put forth is trying to ensure that popular or urgent work doesn't end up getting blocked on lower priority items (and pushed into other venues), we have pretty solid historical data that shows that the approach you're describing leads to very slow progress in moving documents towards publication. What's important to keep in mind is that the working group is entirely in charge of which milestones to add to its chartered work, and that it's possible to remove milestones if you later decide that you need the slot for something more important.
>
> The chairs have been very good about working with the working group to actively manage which documents should become and stay milestones. As this active management approach has led to more regext documents reaching the "publication requested" state rather than fewer, it seems that it is more likely to stave off the need to publish mechanisms outside the IETF than the previous, lower-throughput approach.
>
> /a
>
>
> On 10/26/18 7:16 PM, Gustavo Lozano wrote:
>
> Antoin, Jim, et.al.
>
> My understanding of this message is that only a certain number of I-Ds will be allowed to be adopted as WG documents.
>
> If my understanding is correct, I feel uncomfortable with defining a number, because it appears to exist a recent enthusiasm for creating I-Ds (probably related to the popularity of registration data privacy in several jurisdictions) and having an artificial gate could push authors and implementers to define the standards outside of the WG/IETF.
>
> My preference is for allowing any I-D, that the WG believes that is a good fit, to be adopted. If a subset of the WG participants or non-participants want to get involved in the development of an I-D that is not part of the milestones, they should be free to do so, and the I-D should be allowed to reach RFC status based on the number of reviewers, running code and the last calls.
>
> Regards,
> Gustavo
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: regext <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of James Galvin
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2018 07:15
> To: Registration Protocols Extensions <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [Ext] [regext] regarding adopting new documents and milestones
>
> By now you should have seen the draft agenda for IETF103.  On it you will see 8
> requests for adopting new documents as working group milestones.  The chairs
> are concerned that we should not adopt quite that many new documents all at
> once.
>
> If you look at our current milestone list, there are 3 open milestones.
> One of these (“EPP Domain Name Mapping Extension for Bundling
> Registration”) we expect to close quite soon as the shepherd is actively
> preparing the writeup.  This leaves us with 2 milestones we may wish to
> reconsider whether to keep or not.
>
> The chairs are proposing that the working group should not have more than 5
> open milestones at a time.  We can discuss if that’s the right number but for
> now we will use that as our starting point.
>
> Given that two milestones will remain on our list we will only have room for 3
> new documents to adopt.
>
> We are asking the group to think about the following questions.
>
> 1. How many open milestones should we allow ourselves to have?
>
> 2. Do we want to reconsider any currently open milestones?
>
> 3. Of the 8 documents being proposed for adoption, which ones are the
> priorities, i.e., the documents we want to adopt first?
>
> The last item on our agenda is a discussion of our milestones.  We will use this
> time to consider the questions listed above.
>
> Please note, whatever priorities we create from this discussion will need to be
> brought to the mailing list for final agreement.  We will follow that with a
> separate individual request for adoption of each document selected by the
> working group.
>
> If you have any questions or comments please do respond to the list.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Antoin and Jim
>
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext