----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Narten" <narten(_at_)us(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>
To: "Joe Touch" <touch(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu>
Cc: <adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>; <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 9:31 PM
FWIW, I share Joe's concerns. And Stephen's responses don't really
change my mind.
This document seems to have a bit of missing the forest for the
trees. In the overall scheme of things, I don't believe the draft will
materially help, and is at best a distraction from dealing with
meaningful problems.
I agree. This proposal asks the ADs and WG Chairs to do more work and I
perceive lack of resouces in that area to be the single biggest reason
for I-Ds to fail to progress as fast as they might. Putting more load
on the critical path can only make things worse, for the work as a
whole. Some favoured I-Ds will progress faster but overall, RFCs will
take longer to appear.
In this vein, I have commented before how progress in the IETF tends to
take place in three bursts, in the course of each year, and that if only
we had a way of bringing the three pauses to life, then progress would
be much improved. Quality would almost certainly also improve, since
data would not get lost or forgotten in the pauses. This month, most WG
mailing lists seem to be in a mega-pause (I keep checking the archives
to see if I have been accidentally unsubscribed!): that is the real
problem.
Tom Petch
The crux of the issue is that any attempt at "fast tracking" is
fundamentally about short-circuiting some aspect of our review
processes. We should only do that very carefully. In almost all cases,
individual judgement is needed as to when it is appropriate to do
that. ADs/WG chairs already have some flexibility here. e.g., a WG can
skip WG LC if they think its not needed. And nothing stops an AD from
going to WGLC before doing a careful review. But I'd rather that be
done because the case at hand justifies such an optimization, not
because there is some "running code" checkmark that allows a special
case to be fast tracked..
This document risks substituting process for judgement. I'd rather see
more of the latter and less of the former.
Some specifics from the doc:
In summary this experiment collapses three stages of the
publication
process to run concurrently: working group last call, AD review,
and
IETF last call. Additionally, the experiment will only require
IMO, it is almost never appropriate to collapse WG LC and IETF LC. In
cases where it is appropriate to do so, there presumably isn't a need
for a WG LC to start with. And an AD has always been able to start an
IETF LC without doing a detailed review. The point, is judgement is
needed, and all such cases are best handled on a case-by-case
basis.
Surely, we don't need a document to justify doing this in those cases
where it makes sense...
IETF last call. Additionally, the experiment will only require
issues raised during these three stages to be addressed if they
meet
the IESG's Discuss criteria. The former is not formally a
process
and later:
4. Only comments that would be "DISCUSS-worthy" according to the
IESG Discuss Criteria [DCRIT] need be handled during last
call.
Other comments can be handled or not, at the authors/editors
discretion.
The above can easily become a way to dismiss legitimate review
comments. No doubt, when a AD or reviewer suggests "this needs
fixing", the proponents will hold up this document and say "you
shouldn't do this, per the RFC -- you're violating the spirit of this
document, only really really critical stuff needs to get addressed..."
No thanks. That is not what the IETF is about.
If it is really urgent to get a document done, it is far better to
take steps to make sure the editors are engaged and responsive. That
is more likely the real issue!!!
It is understood that the savings in time for the end-to-end
delivery
of a proposed standard or experimental RFC may be modest,
however,
the modifications to normal IETF process will also serve as an
indication of the importance that the IETF places in running
code.
Running code is valuable. Always has been, always will be. But we need
to resist the temptation of making "running code" more equal than
other criteria or putting it on a pedestal as some sort of holy
grail. Running code by itself is just a sound bite. The importance of
running code is what it tells us about a protocol specification. Just
the mere fact that there is running code doesn't mean there is
anything particularly enlightening to learn from an
implementation. For example, "running code" of a router function in
software doesn't necessarily say anything as to whether the code can
be implemented efficiently using ASICs, which may be the real
requirement.
5. The responsible AD for the WG concerned makes the decision as
to
whether changes are required as a result of review comments,
and
determines whether or not those have been completed. If
significant change or extended discussion is required, or if
changes are not complete within two weeks after the end of
fast-
track last call, then the draft is returned to the WG by the
responsible AD and the document is withdrawn from the
experiment.
The two week figure is too stringent. The above is too prescriptive to
be practical. For starters, how will the IESG telechat align with the
ending of LC? Or what if an IESG member issues a defer (or will those
be disallowed?).
Section 4 has a bit too much detail and process in it. I'm sure it has
both too much and too little actually. I.e., it probably misses some
corner cases, and then what do you do given how prescriptive the rest
of the section is?
But overall, I see this document at best as a no-op. However, I fear
that it can be used to short-circuit our review processes in a way
that doesn't help the IETF and that won't really speed things up
enough to justify the downsides.
Thomas