Mmmmm
My take is that by the time we get to last call, we may be trying to
do - are IMHO in the case of the I-D that kicked this off - things that
were better done earlier.
I can track I-Ds courtesy of the IETF mauling list (whoops Freudian
slip:-) and can take it upon myself to read them but may still have no
idea where - if anywhere - a discussion is taking place by whom and I
may be prevented from taking part in that discussion anyway; and for me
that is the lack of openness that is at the heart of the problem
I believe any individual submission should have a publicly identified,
publicly accessible mailing list, perhaps listed in the I-D
announcement, so that we can raise issues, hopefully resolve them,
before last call. Then a default yes could make sense.
Tom Petch
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Hardie" <hardie(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>
To: "Dave Crocker" <dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net>; "Harald Tveit Alvestrand"
<harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no>; <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
At 9:00 AM -0800 1/10/05, Dave Crocker wrote:
The way to make it obvious that there is serious community support
for adopting an individual submission is to require that the support
be demonstrated ON THE RECORD.
d/
And the point I'm trying to make is that there are multiple records.
When we have
a mailing list like "ietf-types" or "ietf-languages" where there is a
long term
community of interest around a specific issue, should a discussion
there
be taken into account when assessing an individual submission? I
think
the answer is "it depends" and certainly may be "yes". It should not
over-ride
other discussion or be given extraordinary weight, but I do think that
the
evidence there of interest, support, and consideration of issues
raised should
be taken into account. That's why I believe saying "default yes" or
"default no"
at Last Call is too black and white.
I suggest that we try to include pointers to these discussions in
the Last Call text, so that the community has the transparency it
needs
to assess these previous discussions. That will require a change in
behavior, though, as I've been told by several senior folk that they
don't read the Last Call additional text at all if the draft name
alone
convinces them they need to read the document; this was in the context
of the considerable additional explanatory text included with the
langtags "New Last Call". Other suggestions on how to highlight this
to the community reviewing a document at Last Call are more than
welcome.
regards,
Ted Hardie
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf