Discussion of matters related to the applications area of IETF

headers Lisa Dusseault | 2 Jun 19:20

_______________________________________________
Apps-Discuss mailing list
Apps-Discuss <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

Lisa Dusseault wrote:

>   - draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Draft Standard): One DISCUSS over  
> example domain names to be resolved.

BTW, the public tracker makes it easy to see DISCUSSes, but often
it's unclear how they were resolved.  Is there no option to enter
a statement with an updated ballot, or do you (collectively) just
don't use it ?

Out of curiosity I used the atom feeds for the various EAI, SMTP,
and 2822upd drafts, and after weeks I'm still not sure what you
(collectively) mean when you write "discuss discuss".  What is it,
a kind of meta-DISCUSS ?

> Finished Processing -- new in RFC Ed queue and new RFCs

Thanks.  Are you interested to "inherit" an unresolved IANA ticket
wrt the missing Web archive for the register @ uri.arpa list ?  I
fear that this DDDS list specified in RFC 3405 is completely dead.

>    USEFOR: No activity.

I've forwarded the RFC 2822 deployment report request.  To some
degree RFC.ietf-usefor-usefor and NetNews UAs are implementations
of RFC 2822.

 Frank

On Jun 2, 2008, at 1:36 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:

> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>
>>  - draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Draft Standard): One DISCUSS over
>> example domain names to be resolved.
>
> BTW, the public tracker makes it easy to see DISCUSSes, but often
> it's unclear how they were resolved.  Is there no option to enter
> a statement with an updated ballot, or do you (collectively) just
> don't use it ?

The tracker isn't very good at this.  In fact, when I clear my DISCUSS  
position on somebody else's document, the text *goes away* so it's  
hard to reconstruct history this way.  Sometimes, but not often, we  
remember to copy text from the DISCUSS to the COMMENT -- which is  
preserved.

>
>
> Out of curiosity I used the atom feeds for the various EAI, SMTP,
> and 2822upd drafts, and after weeks I'm still not sure what you
> (collectively) mean when you write "discuss discuss".  What is it,
> a kind of meta-DISCUSS ?

Yeah, and almost a joke.  The name of the ballot position is "DISCUSS"  
so that literally we can discuss an issue related to the document on  
the call.  However, if a DISCUSS is not cleared after the telechat, it  
becomes used for the ballot position's other purpose -- to block the  
document until certain changes are made -- that when one of us really  
just wants to make sure that something is discussed on the call, we  
say "discuss DISCUSS" in order to say reassuringly " This is really  
just to trigger a discussion and is not a blocking issue."

If we don't trigger a discussion, then the secretariat just announces  
in the call that such-and-such a document is approved and then move on  
to the next document, and its easy to miss this opportunity among  
20-30 documents.

An example of triggering pure discussion is if I want to ask the  
sponsoring AD whether he has considered Experimental instead of  
Informational but in the end either might be appropriate.

>
>
>> Finished Processing -- new in RFC Ed queue and new RFCs
>
> Thanks.  Are you interested to "inherit" an unresolved IANA ticket
> wrt the missing Web archive for the register @ uri.arpa list ?  I
> fear that this DDDS list specified in RFC 3405 is completely dead.

I can't inherit IANA tickets.  My position is usually that these old  
never-created registries can remain non-existent until a need is  
proven via a registration request.

>
>
>>   USEFOR: No activity.
>
> I've forwarded the RFC 2822 deployment report request.  To some
> degree RFC.ietf-usefor-usefor and NetNews UAs are implementations
> of RFC 2822.

Ok.

Lisa

At 3:38 PM -0700 6/2/08, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>On Jun 2, 2008, at 1:36 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
>
>> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>>
>>>  - draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Draft Standard): One DISCUSS over
>>> example domain names to be resolved.
>>
>> BTW, the public tracker makes it easy to see DISCUSSes, but often
>> it's unclear how they were resolved.  Is there no option to enter
>> a statement with an updated ballot, or do you (collectively) just
>> don't use it ?
>
>The tracker isn't very good at this.  In fact, when I clear my DISCUSS
>position on somebody else's document, the text *goes away* so it's
>hard to reconstruct history this way.  Sometimes, but not often, we
>remember to copy text from the DISCUSS to the COMMENT -- which is
>preserved.

The text doesn't really go away; it becomes less handy to find, though,
as they aren't in the ballot text but are in the detail record.

From the public tracker for a document, click the "detail" button.
The "Comment Log" will contain the text of each DISCUSS or
COMMENT listed, though you have to press a "View Detail" button
in most cases to actually see the text.

I would strongly object to any system which did not preserve the
previous DISCUSS texts, as it would significantly reduce the transparency
of the system.  Making it handier to find would be nice, but since
it is chronologically organized in the core record, this works well
enough.
			regards,
				Ted

Lisa Dusseault wrote:

> we say "discuss DISCUSS" in order to say reassuringly " This is 
> really just to trigger a discussion and is not a blocking issue."

Thanks, now I got it, it is a pseudo-DEFER, not a meta-DISCUSS 

I knew "view details" to see older transactions, but for a ballot
update the details are just that, "xyz new position no objection"
or a similar one-liner.

 Frank

> -----Original Message-----
> From: apps-discuss-bounces <at> ietf.org 
> [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ted Hardie
> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 1:56 AM
> To: Lisa Dusseault; Frank Ellermann
> Cc: apps-discuss <at> ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Lisa's Apps Area Activity Report for May
> 
> At 3:38 PM -0700 6/2/08, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> >On Jun 2, 2008, at 1:36 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> >
> >> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> >>
> >>>  - draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Draft Standard): One DISCUSS over 
> >>> example domain names to be resolved.
> >>
> >> BTW, the public tracker makes it easy to see DISCUSSes, but often 
> >> it's unclear how they were resolved.  Is there no option 
> to enter a 
> >> statement with an updated ballot, or do you (collectively) 
> just don't 
> >> use it ?
> >
> >The tracker isn't very good at this.  In fact, when I clear 
> my DISCUSS 
> >position on somebody else's document, the text *goes away* 
> so it's hard 
> >to reconstruct history this way.  Sometimes, but not often, 
> we remember 
> >to copy text from the DISCUSS to the COMMENT -- which is preserved.
> 
> The text doesn't really go away; it becomes less handy to 
> find, though, as they aren't in the ballot text but are in 
> the detail record.
> 
> From the public tracker for a document, click the "detail" button.
> The "Comment Log" will contain the text of each DISCUSS or 
> COMMENT listed, though you have to press a "View Detail" 
> button in most cases to actually see the text.
> 
> I would strongly object to any system which did not preserve 
> the previous DISCUSS texts, as it would significantly reduce 
> the transparency of the system.  Making it handier to find 
> would be nice, but since it is chronologically organized in 
> the core record, this works well enough.
> 			regards,
> 				Ted
> 

The text of a cleared DISCUSS does not really go away and is still
retrievable as Ted observed. However it seems to me that the original
question was slightly different - it was not about the original DISCUSS
but about how it was resolved. Matching each DISCUSS with a DISCUSS
RESOLUTION seems to be the missing information in the tracker. 

Dan

Lisa Dusseault <lisa <at> osafoundation.org> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 2008, at 1:36 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> 
>> BTW, the public tracker makes it easy to see DISCUSSes, but often
>> it's unclear how they were resolved.  Is there no option to enter
>> a statement with an updated ballot, or do you (collectively) just
>> don't use it ?

   I'm guessing Frank is referring to the Comment Log found at

https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/

which shows the entire history of state changes, ballot positions,
comments and DISCUSS texts; and is noting that it's hardly ever clear
how a DISCUSS was resolved. (Indeed, you have to look carefully for
the email address of the AD to even see _that_ a DISCUSS was cleared.)

> The tracker isn't very good at this.  In fact, when I clear my DISCUSS  
> position on somebody else's document, the text *goes away* so it's  
> hard to reconstruct history this way.

   I believe Lisa is referring to the "Web Ballot" link from the IESG
Agenda web page, which shows only a snapshot summary of the positions
at the time it is generate and the text of COMMENTs and open DISCUSSes.
I believe this is what most IESG members work from for the telechat
discussions.

   The text of a DISCUSS does indeed "go away" from this page, which
I find confusing. There's a good reason, though: when the DISCUSS
position is cleared, that text is obviously out of date. (There's no
similar automatic expiry of COMMENT text.)

> Sometimes, but not often, we remember to copy text from the DISCUSS to
> the COMMENT -- which is preserved.

   It's not clear that individual IESG members _should_ feel any
obligation to do this. And a lot of the clearing of DISCUSSes happens
"at the last minute" -- leaving very little time to do any fancy
footwork for the benefit of folks who will later try to make sense
of what happened.

   Speaking only for myself, I'd find it easier to follow things if
there was an option (perhaps even the default) for each AD clearing a
DISCUSS to leave the text of the DISCUSS -- or edit it -- as a COMMENT
which is non-blocking but preserved (without any fancy cut-and-paste
footwork).

   This wouldn't help Frank much, unless the AD clearing the DISCUSS
actually had enough time to record _how_ an issue was resolved, but
it might be a step in the right direction...

--
John Leslie <john <at> jlc.net>

On Jun 3, 2008, at 1:10 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:

>>
>> I would strongly object to any system which did not preserve
>> the previous DISCUSS texts, as it would significantly reduce
>> the transparency of the system.  Making it handier to find
>> would be nice, but since it is chronologically organized in
>> the core record, this works well enough.
>> 			regards,
>> 				Ted
>>
>
> The text of a cleared DISCUSS does not really go away and is still
> retrievable as Ted observed. However it seems to me that the original
> question was slightly different - it was not about the original  
> DISCUSS
> but about how it was resolved. Matching each DISCUSS with a DISCUSS
> RESOLUTION seems to be the missing information in the tracker.

In theory we could move that information into a COMMENT field which  
would be kept with the ballots, without updating the tracker-- or even  
enter a comment in the comment log (Confusing, no?).   If we have a  
convention like that, it would be nice to be consistent about which we  
choose.

Of course, to encourage this more than by convention, one of the "nice  
to haves" for the tracker would be to prompt for a DISCUSS resolution  
text when a DISCUSS position is changed.

Lisa

I think prompting for, and logging, a discuss-resolution really meets
the need. 

David Harrington
dbharrington <at> comcast.net
ietfdbh <at> comcast.net
dharrington <at> huawei.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: apps-discuss-bounces <at> ietf.org 
> [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 12:36 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: Frank Ellermann; apps-discuss <at> ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Lisa's Apps Area Activity Report for May
> 
> 
> On Jun 3, 2008, at 1:10 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> I would strongly object to any system which did not preserve
> >> the previous DISCUSS texts, as it would significantly reduce
> >> the transparency of the system.  Making it handier to find
> >> would be nice, but since it is chronologically organized in
> >> the core record, this works well enough.
> >> 			regards,
> >> 				Ted
> >>
> >
> > The text of a cleared DISCUSS does not really go away and is still
> > retrievable as Ted observed. However it seems to me that 
> the original
> > question was slightly different - it was not about the original  
> > DISCUSS
> > but about how it was resolved. Matching each DISCUSS with a
DISCUSS
> > RESOLUTION seems to be the missing information in the tracker.
> 
> In theory we could move that information into a COMMENT field which

> would be kept with the ballots, without updating the 
> tracker-- or even  
> enter a comment in the comment log (Confusing, no?).   If we have a

> convention like that, it would be nice to be consistent about 
> which we  
> choose.
> 
> Of course, to encourage this more than by convention, one of 
> the "nice  
> to haves" for the tracker would be to prompt for a DISCUSS 
> resolution  
> text when a DISCUSS position is changed.
> 
> Lisa
> _______________________________________________
> Apps-Discuss mailing list
> Apps-Discuss <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
> 

Two points:

- I have always looked at the comments log at
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/, so I have never
  missed any (even cleared) DISCUSSes. There is a bit of noise
  there (sometimes, somebody goes back and forth on whether
  to add a discuss or not,...), but it's not bad enough that
  I was ever feeling the need for a fix.

- I agree that often, it might be good to see more discuss-
  resolution details. But while DISCUSSes are created very
  formally, my impression is that they often get resolved
  very informally. In many cases, e.g., there is some mail
  discussions with the draft authors or the WG chairs (and WG),
  and some text gets added or tweaked in a draft. In some
  other cases, it just ends up as "seem it wasn't as big
  a problem as I thought" or "ah, they already have a pragraph
  describing that issue", or "well, if the WG thought about
  it and decided the way they did, that's good enough",
  and so on. In the extreme, it may be "sorry, misunderstood,
  my bad". If these things have to be entered into
  a system, they suddenly might have to be worded much more
  formally, and I guess this might significantly reduce the
  flexibility of the current process.

Regards,    Martin.

At 01:45 08/06/04, David Harrington wrote:
>I think prompting for, and logging, a discuss-resolution really meets
>the need. 
>
>David Harrington
>dbharrington <at> comcast.net
>ietfdbh <at> comcast.net
>dharrington <at> huawei.com

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst <at> it.aoyama.ac.jp     

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun

						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30

67	February 2012
210	January 2012
164	December 2011
403	November 2011
68	October 2011
104	September 2011
145	August 2011
231	July 2011
121	June 2011
182	May 2011
85	April 2011
148	March 2011
60	February 2011
89	January 2011
104	December 2010
54	November 2010
80	October 2010
101	September 2010
9	August 2010
140	July 2010
44	June 2010
35	May 2010
86	April 2010
29	March 2010
50	February 2010
69	January 2010
67	December 2009
38	November 2009
91	October 2009
41	September 2009
96	August 2009
134	July 2009
129	June 2009
58	May 2009
121	April 2009
107	March 2009
41	February 2009
75	January 2009
11	December 2008
21	November 2008
7	October 2008
39	September 2008
5	August 2008
44	July 2008
34	June 2008
10	May 2008
31	April 2008
7	March 2008
67	February 2008
66	January 2008
76	December 2007
76	November 2007
66	October 2007
61	September 2007
24	August 2007
23	July 2007
75	June 2007
168	May 2007
2	April 2007
6	March 2007
37	February 2007
47	January 2007
1	December 2006
32	November 2006
22	October 2006
22	September 2006
34	August 2006
5	July 2006
5	June 2006
5	May 2006
7	March 2006
1	January 2006
1	November 2005
3	October 2005
4	August 2005
1	July 2005
21	June 2005
9	May 2005
2	April 2005
8	March 2005
11	February 2005
1	December 2004
5	October 2004
4	September 2004
28	August 2004
2	July 2004

Lisa's Apps Area Activity Report for May

Re: Lisa's Apps Area Activity Report for May

Re: Lisa's Apps Area Activity Report for May

Re: Lisa's Apps Area Activity Report for May

Re: Lisa's Apps Area Activity Report for May

RE: Lisa's Apps Area Activity Report for May

DISCUSS vs. COMMENT in the ID tracker

Re: Lisa's Apps Area Activity Report for May

RE: Lisa's Apps Area Activity Report for May

RE: Lisa's Apps Area Activity Report for May