ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: <draft-farrell-ft-03.txt> (A Fast-Track way to RFC with Running Code) to Experimental RFC

2013-01-28 23:06:49

My read of this draft is that it eliminates the need for rough consensus at 
both the WG and IETF level. Basically the WG chair can just decide and even if 
the WG disagrees with the chair. If the WG does not have consensus in WGLC that 
they they do want to publish the draft, it still gets published. I realize from 
the email list discussions this may not be what the author of the draft 
intended but it is how I read this draft.  

Because of this, I am against approving this and also believe it would need to 
be BCP not experimental as it changes the fundamental process to approve PS 
drafts. 

The rest of this draft, the part about overlapping, is already allowed by the 
process today as the draft points out. The WGLC is not required at all, the AD 
processing and  IETF LC can overlap. However, I think that the AD should do 
their processing before they LC the draft because that means they check it is 
ready before wasting the IESG and everyone else's time revving a document. AD 
processing can often be done in a few hours or less if the draft is ready. 
Generally, WGLC avoids late surprises which take more time in the long run but 
all of this is a general guideline and there are cases where it make sense to 
overlap all this and put it through. Thus I think it is good that the current 
process allows this to all be overlapped at the chair and AD discretion. 

I encourage the AD & Chairs to overlap where they think it will 1) is 
appropriate 2) will speed things up and 3) the speed up actually helps the 
internet or some groups of users in a meaningful way. I'm certainly not against 
some chairs, ADs, etc trying to put a draft throughout quickly that they think 
is ready (running code or not) but I don't see the need for this change to the 
process. 

I also have a question for the each IESG member that I think is very relevant - 
Do all of you agree to only put discussed that meet the "Discuss Criteria" this 
draft refers too? I really hope you do. If you don't that raises even more 
issues for how this draft changes the process. 

Cullen




On Jan 11, 2013, at 8:14 AM, The IESG <iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> 
wrote:


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'A Fast-Track way to RFC with Running Code'
 <draft-farrell-ft-03.txt> as Experimental RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2013-02-08. Exceptionally, comments 
may be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

  This memo describes an optional, fast-track way to progress a working
  group document to IESG review.  It is provided as a process
  experiment as defined in RFC 3933 for use when working group chairs
  believe that there is running code that implements a working group
  Internet-Draft.  The motivation is to have the IETF process
  explicitly consider running code, consistent with the IETF's overall
  philosophy of running code and rough consensus.

  In this process all of working group last call, IETF last call, and
  Area Director review are carried out in the same two week period.
  Only comments that meet IESG Discuss criteria need to be addressed
  during this stage, and authors are required to make any changes
  within two weeks.

  This experiment will run for one year.


The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrell-ft/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrell-ft/ballot/

No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>