2 Sep 17:19
Re: HTTPBis BOF followup - should RFC 2965 (cookie) be in scope for the WG?
Yngve N. Pettersen (Developer Opera Software ASA <yngve <at> opera.com>
2007-09-02 15:19:53 GMT
2007-09-02 15:19:53 GMT
Hello Stefanos, On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 19:44:10 +0200, Stefanos Harhalakis <v13 <at> priest.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday 28 August 2007, Stefanos Harhalakis wrote: >> On Monday 27 August 2007, Alexey Melnikov wrote: >> >> I don't know if I'm supposed to vote, but I'd suggest 1 (No). The >> rationale >> can be summarized in the question: "Why yes?". > > Sorry for replying to self but I'd like to change that to 4: > Discuss it in the list first. > > Then, maybe vote for '3'. > > After reading the minutes (again), I understand that this will only > change > RFC 2695 to 'become' the Netscape doc. So, I don't actually see it as a > hi > priority issue, thinking that a well accepted document already exists > (Netscape) and there is no confusion. Also, shouldn't this become a new > RFC > that will replace 2695? I think you misunderstand the intention of my I-D draft-pettersen-cookie-v2 , and my presentation at the BoF.(Continue reading)
.
>What other purposes do WG's serve besides simply publishing
>documents, that are not met by IS's? [3]
Besides what you say below, I think WGs are crucial for document
suites. I don't think something like e.g. the series of documents
currently being worked on by EAI could be handled as ISes.
>If we turned down ISs in Apps, would the proposed work die, go
>elsewhere or ... ? Would that be bad?
If you think it belongs elsewhere, you should turn it down.
Although I think you as an AD can sponsor just about any IS,
I'd use "does it fall into the IETF work area" and "does it
fall into the Application Area" as main criteria.
Regards, Martin.s
>Lisa
>
>[0] Note "Independent Submission" is a different thing, an I-D that
>goes through the RFC Editor to RFC and never gets an IETF last call,
>so it's marked as not an IETF document
>
>[1] So far I have been sponsoring nearly every document I'm asked to,
>not really limiting. However I can see time limiting becoming required.
>
>[2] My current practice is to do WG-related work first, then IS- sponsoring work in rotation. Note that
with WG-related work, the WG
>chair does some work which I have to do with IS documents. IS
>documents are usually more work for me than WG products.
>
>[3] I'll take a first stab at this one:
> - creating buy-in among potential implementors,
> - developing relationships that can lead to more interop work than
>otherwise,
> - choosing document editors that can reflect or build consensus,
>strongarm them if necessary
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
#-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-# 
. That having been said:
>
> Is an IS that defines a new protocol for the Standards Track fine in
> general?
It Depends.
Could you imagine DKIM going forward as an individual submission? I
couldn't. We could never get the community to agree to it. Let's
return to the purpose of WGs in the first place. They exist, in my
opinion, as a convenience for area directors. You use them as a tool to
drive consensus. It's a very heavy weight process which should be
avoided when it can be. In spite of what I write below, however, I
largely agree with Keith in terms of applicability of ISes.
And so the standard (ahem) I would apply were I in your shoes (ouch)
would be the following six questions:
1. Is this work appropriate to standardize? Is it important enough
and is it in an area in which we have competence? If no, stop
here and kill.
2. Will there be more than one or two implementors? If no, stop here
and kill. Without sufficient intent from implementors, you
probably don't have a viable specification, with or without a
working group. Otherwise you're now to the point where you or a
stuckee probably have to read the whole thing. So...
3. Are you confident that the community would agree with the approach
taken? If not, perhaps a BoF?
4. Would the work benefit from working group review through forging
of consensus through compromise and dialog? If yes, create a
working group. Otherwise..
5. Is the work ready for advancement? You have the right and
responsibility to say, sometimes, "yes, this is improtant, but no
this is not of sufficient quality that I believe it should be
advanced, because...", followed by "take the following actions to
improve the document and come back to me..." Some people say a WG
can help here, but I'm not convinced.
6. Otherwise, sure, go ahead. But again, use your judgment. I can't
envision all the exigencies.
I take the tact that individual submissions should have the same
priority as working group submissions once you've answered yes to both
(1) and (2), with the understanding that you will then prioritize your
work so as not to consume more than a reasonable amount of time on the
AD job. The last thing we want is for ADs to burn out. If this means
that documents are not put out fast enough, let's deal with that problem
separately. To answer (3) and (4) there's no reason why you couldn't
really on a group of advisors you trust. Call them document shepherds
or whatever.
If after last call you judge there not to be consensus there is no
reason you couldn't send the thing to a working group to go get fixed.
This will of course depend on the authors' wishes to a great extent. If
they don't want to go through the pain of a working group, it's very
hard to push something through in those circumstances.
> Is an IS that extends a standard protocol developed in a WG fine in
> general?
Same answer as above.
> Is an IS that obsoletes a standard protocol developed in a WG fine in
> general?
Same answer as above.
>
> Do IS's suffer from less review? Is that a problem?
> Whose responsibility is it to get sufficient review?
Joint between you and the authors.
>
> Is it mostly well-connected individuals that can use the IS track,
> knowing an AD to do the sponsoring? Or mostly individuals with a lot
> of time on their hands?
How does one answer this?
> An IS can have a non-AD document shepherd. Does encouraging that
> improve the situation or make IS publishing even more dependent on the
> author's connections?
In an informal sense, yes. No reason for you not to have help.
>
> Should I limit time spent sponsoring IS's? [1] IESG work plus IS work
> could consume 30 hours a week, or 40, or 50...
You should limit the time you put into the IESG, but prioritize what is
important, be it IS or WG.
>
> Assuming I limit the potentially endless amount of work devoted to
> IS's, do I limit it algorithmically (e.g. first come first served),
> as a matter of pure taste, or other?
I'm going to presume from this line of questioning that you receive a
lot of garbage. If the abstract looks stupid, unimportant, or otherwise
indicates that the doc is not appropriate for the IETF, trust that the
rest of the document is as well and say so and move on.
> How should I prioritize IS sponsoring work? Which documents get my
> attention first? [2]
See above.
>
> When there's a question of consensus for an IS document, should I just
> drop the document?
No. If it's important figure out what to do. Perhaps that's a working
group. Perhaps that's a set of clearly defined changes. Perhaps you
have to drop it, but if it really is important, others will be willing
to offer alternatives, given the chance.
> Assuming I try to determine consensus how do I do so without an
> official owning WG -- consensus calls to the IETF discuss list?
> Choose a related list and hope people are paying attention?
Yes. Consensus calls to the IETF discuss list, as well as anywhere else
the info comes from. But you might want to draw people's attention to
something you think is important.
> Do I need to ensure there's a quorum?
You don't need a quorum, but you'd better be very sure of yourself
without one. I think it's a good idea for people to step and say, "this
is a good idea" or "this is a bad idea" or "here is what would make this
a good idea". Absent that, you should be conservative.
>
> How would appeals against IS documents affect answers to these issues?
> (Usually individual ADs take the first stab at handling appeals,
> formal or informal, against WG chair decisions. When there's no WG
> chair involved with a doc, I guess the appeal would go straight to the
> whole IESG...)
If someone questions your consensus call that's a pretty easy appeal to
handle. Also, your peers should give you advice about consensus before
you make the call.
> Does sponsoring many IS documents give an AD, and the IESG as a whole,
> too much power?
No. You still should heavily weight community consensus. And the IAB
needs to pay attention.
>
> Are we discouraging legitimate WGs by encouraging IS's?
Since a WG is a heavy weight tool for you, who cares?
> What other purposes do WG's serve besides simply publishing documents,
> that are not met by IS's? [3]
> If we turned down ISs in Apps, would the proposed work die, go
> elsewhere or ... ? Would that be bad?
It Depends. If it's bad work, no. If it's work that's not appropriate
for the IETF, no. If it's unimportant, no. Otherwise, yes.
Eliot
RSS Feed