But regardless of this, I am concerned that the resolution of a DISCUSS
is not archived anywhere. If you want to restrict the DISCUSS from
reaching the WG unless the WG chair decides, then you MUST log the
resolution (not just the fact of reslution) of each DISCUSS in the I-D
Well, there are really only three main ways a DISCUSS gets resolved:
1. The AD withdraws it
2. The I-D gets updated
3. A Note to the RFC Editor is inserted in the tracker
(There are certainly corner cases beyond those, but those are
the large majority). These are all tracked events. What we don't
have is a comment added to the DISCUSS saying "resolved by
version -17" or whatever. Is that needed?
Not sure if that is needed.
What I am interested in seeing is a record of what the resolution of the
DISCUSS was (i.e. the technical substance of the resolution). Thus, using
1. Why did the AD withdraw the DISCUSS?
Was some information forthcoming that made it clear?
Was the AD brow-beaten into submission?
2. What updates were made to the I-D to address this
particular DISCUSS? (It does not follow that all changes
to the I-D were in response to this DISCUSS.) And why
were these changes suitable to address the DISCUSS?
3. Are notes to the RFC Editor inserted in the I-D tracker?
I certainly haven't seen them there in the past.
In any case, we would still like to see why this note to the
RFC Editor is suitable to address the DISCUSS.
In short, we want some record of the discussions that lead to a change (any
change) to a draft that has completed Working Group last call and completed
IETF last call. It is not that we do not trust the combination of IESG, WG
chairs and document Editors to make these changes and refer back to the WG
when necessary. It is that we cannot see what changes were made and the
I am still finding it hard to see why this should not be in more open view
of the working group.
In which case, no damage done by sending it to the WG?
A slight increase in traffic on the mailing list. So what?
I think you will find a variety of opinion on that.
Not expressed on this mailing list so far.
And, do you assume that the WG chair is the best person to resolve these
simple issues? The chair may also suffer from the same simple
misconception resulting in the wrong thing happening to the I-D.
But the WG Chair is the PROTO shepherd and does have responsibility.
The PROTO shepherd has this responsiblity and may be the WG chair?
So the WG chair is falible. Isn't that a good reason to allow the community
to see the conversation?
As a completely random example, draft-ietf-ipv6-over-ppp-v2-02
currently has 2 DISCUSSes. The tracker log shows 4 entered DISCUSSes
(some revisions) and 6 COMMENTs - 10 mails to the WG mailing list seems
excessive, while 1 mail seems more likely to be seen as useful.
I completely disagree! The WG needs to know that it is completing last
call on I-Ds that are not making it through review smoothly. How else
will the WG improve its output?
Looking at this particular I-D, the I-D tracker seems to be being used
for conversations between IESG members. A bit odd, perhaps?
Well, it puts that conversation on the public record.
Yes. That is true.
How about allowing PROTO shepherds to post to the I-D tracker?
Ietf mailing list