ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: The requirements cycle

2003-07-07 13:28:44

Eric> Not sure  what you mean, it  always takes time to  produce a document,
Eric> even if the document is just a "rock fetch".

Harald> sorry; "rock fetch" is beyond my scope of American idiom. 

"Rock  fetch":   when  the "boss"  sends  the  workers  out on  useless  but
time-consuming tasks.  

Harald> But version  -01 of the framework  document is dated  July 19, 2001,
Harald> and the  first version submitted to  the IESG is  dated February 15,
Harald> 2002. 

About six months to get the WG  to agree on the framework, that doesn't seem
excessive for a document.  It's a rock fetch though because there is no real
need for a framework document. 

Harald> I took that as a hint  that there might have been controversy in the
Harald> working group about it. 

It  was  never a  very  controversial  document.   My recollection  is  that
framework and requirements were ready about  January of 2002, which is why I
said that they were ready about  18 months ago.  So were the protocol specs,
applicability statements, etc.

Eric> Well,  each  objection from  the  IESG needs  to  be  discussed and  a
Eric> response crafted. 

Harald> which should take approximately 3 days of work, IMHO.  Comments that
Harald> translate  to "you  are  referencing an  obsolete  version of  LDAP"
Harald> should take approximately 2 minutes to fix. 

Comments which were  received last fall (I first saw them  a few weeks prior
to  the Atlanta  IETF  meeting)  required a  considerable  reworking of  the
document.  (Sisyphus comes to mind here ;-))

Harald> Did the  WG declare consensus on  all those documents  18 months ago
Harald> (January 2002)? 

The WG  was told by the  WG chairs that the  IESG would not allow  the WG to
even consider  the solutions documents until the  framework and requirements
documents  were approved  by the  IESG.  Something  is very  wrong  with the
process here.

The L3VPN  protocol specs  themselves haven't changed  in years, which  is a
good thing, given  the large amount of interoperable  deployment by multiple
vendors!