Subject: [bmwg] IESG Interaction

From: "Snyder, Guy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:27:05 +0000

As part of the discussion for the re-charter, it was presented that
there was an issue getting drafts through the IESG.  Some examples were
the IPsec terminology and methodology. Al indicated that normally this
was because the IESG did not agree with our terminology.  So my question
is, did the documents stall because authors did not work with the IESG?
Forgive me, but I don't understand totally how this process works and
how changes/fixes could have happened that would have satisfied the IESG
so the documents did not expire. 

-- Guy

---

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 08:47:53 -0400

At 06:27 AM 7/29/2010, Snyder, Guy wrote:

Content-class:
urn:content-classes:message

Content-type: multipart/alternative;

boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CB2F08.987022E1"

As part of the discussion for the
re-charter, it was presented that there was an issue getting drafts
through the IESG.  Some examples were the IPsec terminology and
methodology. Al indicated that normally this was because the IESG did not
agree with our terminology.

Well, the audio record rules, but I didn't say much in my

WG status presentation about these drafts, except that

they had expired while we were waiting for the authors to

resolve the IESG comments. (Later, I think Ron may have

mentioned the IPsec drafts in his motivation to revise

the charter. He cited a general difficulty with the benchmarks

themselves that has caused some problems.)

To see what the IESG really said, which is what matters most,

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipsec-term/

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipsec-meth/

So my question is, did the
documents stall because authors did not work with the IESG?

Officially, we are still waiting to see revised drafts that

address all the IESG comments.

Forgive me, but I don’t
understand totally how this process works and how changes/fixes could
have happened that would have satisfied the IESG so the documents did not
expire.

We simply needed the revisions to be made sooner, but we are a

volunteer organization and the volunteers can only help us

when they have the time and energy...

Al

---

From: "Snyder, Guy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:59:02 +0000

Forgive me (you and the authors) if this sounded like I was saying the
authors were not doing something. I was just using these two documents
as examples of the many that have expired. I just wanted to understand
the problem and the process that was trying to be solved. I think you
answered my questions. I totally understand your comment about volunteer
time.

-- Guy

-- ICSA Labs

________________________________

From: Al Morton [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 8:48 AM
To: Snyder, Guy; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [bmwg] IESG Interaction

Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CB2F08.987022E1"

As part of the discussion for the re-charter, it was presented that
there was an issue getting drafts through the IESG.  Some examples were
the IPsec terminology and methodology. Al indicated that normally this
was because the IESG did not agree with our terminology. 

 So my question is, did the documents stall because authors did not work
with the IESG? 

Al

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:54:08 +0200

Documents do not expire at 6 months after they are submitted to IESG
review (even if they are such marked in the tracker - this actually
seems a bug). 
 
Dan

	From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Snyder, Guy
	Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:59 PM
	To: Al Morton; [email-masked]
	Subject: Re: [bmwg] IESG Interaction

	Forgive me (you and the authors) if this sounded like I was
saying the authors were not doing something. I was just using these two
documents as examples of the many that have expired. I just wanted to
understand the problem and the process that was trying to be solved. I
think you answered my questions. I totally understand your comment about
volunteer time.

	-- Guy

	-- ICSA Labs

	
	As part of the discussion for the re-charter, it was presented
that there was an issue getting drafts through the IESG.  Some examples
were the IPsec terminology and methodology. Al indicated that normally
this was because the IESG did not agree with our terminology. 

	

	 So my question is, did the documents stall because authors did
not work with the IESG? 

	

	 Forgive me, but I don't understand totally how this process
works and how changes/fixes could have happened that would have
satisfied the IESG so the documents did not expire. 

	Al

---

From: Merike Kaeo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 09:55:50 -0700

Hi there....

I, as a volunteer author, will fully admit that most of the fault  
with the IPsec documents lies with the authors.  The IESG did work  
diligently in getting comments addressed and for these two documents,  
the other authors bowed out years ago due to varying reasons.   
Unfortunately I had personal reasons (back issues leading to surgery)  
for not finishing the documents from Feb - July this year.

Note that in email, all of the IESG comments were addressed by Jan  
2010 - they just needed to be incorporated into new ID.  All of the  
emails are on record since IESG was copied on all of them.

- merike

On Jul 29, 2010, at 5:59 AM, Snyder, Guy wrote:

> Forgive me (you and the authors) if this sounded like I was saying  
> the authors were not doing something. I was just using these two  
> documents as examples of the many that have expired. I just wanted  
> to understand the problem and the process that was trying to be  
> solved. I think you answered my questions. I totally understand  
> your comment about volunteer time.
>
>
>
> -- Guy
>
> -- ICSA Labs
>
> there was an issue getting drafts through the IESG.  Some examples  
> were the IPsec terminology and methodology. Al indicated that  
> normally this was because the IESG did not agree with our terminology.
>
>
>  So my question is, did the documents stall because authors did not  
> work with the IESG?
>
>
>  Forgive me, but I don’t understand totally how this process works  
> and how changes/fixes could have happened that would have satisfied  
> the IESG so the documents did not expire.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bmwg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg