Re: [yam] Pre-evaluation documents
Barry Leiba <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com> Fri, 18 June 2010 01:04 UTC
Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: yam@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yam@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 206663A6877 for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:04:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.650, BAYES_50=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3FhQU93hlyST for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97A743A6874 for <yam@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws15 with SMTP id 15so532160vws.31 for <yam@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:04:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:reply-to :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=fzXNUz3vq/6L9DPaSpuayVkW+x/gAKIkvRvXReCQSR8=; b=c+DluPa7RZTzF8vHbg0tcOgIBnGZyphYTpddP5XEBpY7FM2XeuNJ5Qm5gCQKBX5DNe zdrVTuCaMSlzuhz7UgI1/dLZLWSvWZpJwODQ/CipHFCE7xG3vL3fOxaPZJFOPy+9Hapn DSazDSnAADkTkNvtHCWcPbDWX3+e9UBcNGMQA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=vA0DYtCxf/uRLrRwgPOzPldxXDQ9FGdCmKnutEv4oa+g9QhjCL6mgXd4ejY+Uwvnzl EFEdFhdvp//CqKx01MWGwVLzkEPVy4ucH3+/Id2xKmW5mz9Qk+cTw7d45edGh/KJ5oFz RLlPPdRpBwbd5vrD/sOYq/72XOCFJCI/MqlXo=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.127.87 with SMTP id f23mr144462vcs.276.1276823063534; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:04:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.91.40 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:04:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4C199BF3.2080304@qualcomm.com>
References: <4C0E4CAB.301@isode.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20100608074511.0989f828@resistor.net> <4C0E6522.4010802@isode.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20100608085200.09627560@resistor.net> <4C0F2DC8.2070707@isode.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20100608231912.0925f2b8@resistor.net> <4C10DFC0.6020501@isode.com> <4C199BF3.2080304@qualcomm.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 21:04:23 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTin7Jg_SGqM4LVNPulmew_4cvXMR2Vb1yKveIAJM@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: Yet Another Mail Working Group <yam@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [yam] Pre-evaluation documents
X-BeenThere: yam@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: barryleiba@computer.org
List-Id: Yet Another Mail working group discussion list <yam.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam>
List-Post: <mailto:yam@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 01:04:23 -0000
> Catching up a bit: Yes, me too; sorry, but I've been away. > - I think Last Calling these things is silly, though probably harmless. > These are evaluations of whether items are on our charter, only in a more > extensive way than most items hit a charter. This is an IESG decision, not a > community decision. If the IESG needs community input into these decisions, > that's fine, but I would think the IESG has the expertise to make these > decisions for themselves. I think it's more than silly: it's harmful. Repeating what others have said, but more succinctly: it is VERY EXPENSIVE to ask the community to review and give last-call comments to the pre-eval documents, VERY EXPENSIVE to ask the RFC Editor to put them through the process, VERY EXPENSIVE to publish them as RFCs and have <strike>Alfred</strike> many folks pay attention to them as fully fledged documents. It strikes me that some people are underestimating the cost, probably by mistakenly thinking that the time that goes into all this is free. We know that the time spent by the IESG and the document authors is not free. Let's not forget that the community review time and the other community attention are not free either. For reasons already stated, the decision process can be recorded, the documentation of the process and the decision can be archived, and the IESG can get whatever advice it needs to supplement its own collective expertise without going through the VERY EXPENSIVE process of making these things RFCs. Let's PLEASE save the RFCs for the actual documents, and NOT for the pre-evals. Barry
- Re: [yam] Pre-evaluation documents John C Klensin
- [yam] Pre-evaluation documents Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [yam] Pre-evaluation documents SM
- Re: [yam] Pre-evaluation documents Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [yam] Pre-evaluation documents SM
- Re: [yam] Pre-evaluation documents Ned Freed
- Re: [yam] Pre-evaluation documents Dave CROCKER
- Re: [yam] Pre-evaluation documents Tony Hansen
- Re: [yam] Pre-evaluation documents Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [yam] Pre-evaluation documents SM
- Re: [yam] Pre-evaluation documents John C Klensin
- Re: [yam] Pre-evaluation documents Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [yam] Pre-evaluation documents Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [yam] Pre-evaluation documents Ned Freed
- Re: [yam] Pre-evaluation documents Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [yam] Pre-evaluation documents Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [yam] Pre-evaluation documents Ned Freed
- Re: [yam] Pre-evaluation documents John C Klensin
- Re: [yam] Pre-evaluation documents Dave CROCKER
- [yam] The IETF Record (was: Re: Pre-evaluation do… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [yam] Pre-evaluation documents Pete Resnick
- Re: [yam] Pre-evaluation documents Barry Leiba
- Re: [yam] Pre-evaluation documents Alexey Melnikov