[yam] Notes from the phone talk between IESG and YAM WG participants

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Mon, 21 December 2009 19:19 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Original-To: yam@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yam@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43B753A6881 for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:19:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.531
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.068, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id riDgHDzClLCE for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:19:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FA5A3A680C for <yam@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:19:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <Sy=KRgA7xVB4@rufus.isode.com>; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:19:38 +0000
Message-ID: <4B2FCA36.5080800@isode.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:19:18 +0000
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: yam@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [yam] Notes from the phone talk between IESG and YAM WG participants
X-BeenThere: yam@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
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: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:19:56 -0000

Based on Chris' Notes and my edits. If people who were present on the 
call think that I've misrepresented something, please let me know.

* WG is serious about moving things to full standard.  WG chairs
committed to enforcing charter and avoid things off charter, such as 
process related changes
* Purpose of pre-reviews is to scope work before doing it (feasibility
test) and to avoid "late surprises" to the extent feasible.  WG wants 
both likely DISCUSS issues and nice-to-have change suggestions from IESG 
to evaluate early.
* WG understands that new IESG members, inadequate resolution of a 
pre-review DISCUSS issue or new IETF last call issues may result in IESG 
DISCUSS positions, but wants new IESG members to justify 
non-IETF-last-call DISCUSS issues in context of IESG pre-review 
feedback. A suggestion to remind ADs about pre-reviews is to include
a pointer to original pre-review response from IESG in the shepherding
* IESG wants pre-reviews done as management items.  IESG will send email
with results of pre-review to WG. IESG would welcome any comments on 
content of such email messages and will revise their format based on WG 
* An intent to move something to Full Standard later during YAM WG
lifecycle is not by itself sufficient to justify a downref. So downrefs 
need to be justified independently, as highly unlikely to incompatibly 
change a Full Standard, and called out explicitly during IETF Last Call.
* It is OK to 1). explicitly call out downrefs in IETF Last Call, 2).
move documents referencing each other as a set, or 3). move documents 
with normative references that sit in RFC editor queue waiting for
dependencies. The WG should choose the most appropriate mechanism and
can choose different mechanisms for different documents.
* IESG would be happy to do other phone calls between IESG and YAM WG in
the future.