Subject: [EAI] Maastricht meeting and Pre-WG-Last Call alert: draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 16:12:31 -0400

Hi.

<WG-chair-hat off>
<author-hat on>

Other than two sets of comments from Ernie and Shawn's excursion
about a client announcement keyword, I've seen no comments on
this document since -01 was posted.

I am about to take the silence as an indication that the WG is
happy with this document.   Note that "happy" implies that we
have no remaining protocol design issues whose resolution would
need to be reflected in in the framework/summary document.  I
don't know if that is true or not but, if it isn't, we had
better know Really Soon Now.

Absent more comments, I'm going to generate a -02 and post it
before the deadline (more likely Sunday my time than at the last
minute).   I will then ask Joseph to initiate a WG Last Call to
terminate not later than 0900 Maastricht time July 29 (i.e., 24
hours before we meet face to face) and will start a discussion
with Alexey as to whether to issue an IETF Last Call on the
document and then let it sit in the RFC Editor queue until the
other documents are ready or to adopt some other plan.

If you have comments or concerns, please express them _very_
soon.  Also, if you are not coming to Maastricht and have any
concerns about this document or any of the others, I will expect
clear and focused comments to this mailing list well before our
Maastricht meeting starts.  Conclusions reached during the
meeting will be checked with the mailing list as usual, but any
criticisms or issues that we were not able to discuss at the
meeting because of late posting had better be _really_
important.  If there are no such criticisms, I'd expect the
period of WG review after the IETF meeting ends to be very short.

As far as I know right now, we have the following substantive
items for the agenda in Maastricht, not necessarily in this
order:

	(1) Final review of 4952bis, as discussed above.
	
	(2) Review and triage of 5335bis and 5336bis.  If there
	are no comments, I would expect those documents to go
	into WG Last Call no later than mid-August, so people
	better start reading.
	
	(3) Review of other documents, schedules, and sorting
	out of author/editor responsibilities.

Folks with other topics they would like on the agenda should
identify them no later than the beginning of next week.  While
topics can, in principle, be added in Maastricht, we would
really like to get comments from those who will not attend and
that means that the topic should be on the agenda and discussion
should start within the next week or so.

Disclaimer: I signed up as co-chair based on what appeared to be
WG consensus that we wanted to move things along quickly.  While
I'm certainly happy to consider special circumstances (e.g., I
know August is a vacation month for many people and that a WG
Last Call started in August should not terminate before
September), "quickly" can be accomplished only if we are
relatively intolerant of side discussions, off-topic
discussions, or out of sequence discussions.   It also means
that we should adopt something of what is sometimes called a
"you snooze, you lose" attitude: if a document is posted for
comments, failure to make comments, or to ask for more time with
a reason, will be taken as evidence of either agreement or
indifference.   If anyone objects to that strategy, he or she
should speak up now and try to convince others that a slower and
more deliberative pace is better and more likely to produce
significantly better results.

regards to all,
    john

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:51:54 +0100

>Hi.
Hi John,

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 08:57:55 -0400

--On Sunday, July 11, 2010 12:51 +0100 Alexey Melnikov
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> John C Klensin wrote:
> 
>> Hi.
>>  
>> 
> Hi John,
> 
>> <WG-chair-hat off>
>> <author-hat on>
>> 
>> Other than two sets of comments from Ernie and Shawn's
>> excursion about a client announcement keyword, I've seen no
>> comments on this document since -01 was posted.
>> 
>> have no remaining protocol design issues whose resolution
>> would need to be reflected in in the framework/summary
>> document.  I don't know if that is true or not but, if it
>> isn't, we had better know Really Soon Now.
>> 
>> before the deadline (more likely Sunday my time than at the
>> last minute).   I will then ask Joseph to initiate a WG Last
>> Call to terminate not later than 0900 Maastricht time July 29
>> (i.e., 24 hours before we meet face to face) and will start a
>> discussion with Alexey as to whether to issue an IETF Last
>> Call on the document and then let it sit in the RFC Editor
>> queue until the other documents are ready or to adopt some
>> other plan.
>> 
>> concerns about this document or any of the others, I will
>> expect clear and focused comments to this mailing list well
>> before our Maastricht meeting starts.  Conclusions reached
>> during the meeting will be checked with the mailing list as
>> usual, but any criticisms or issues that we were not able to
>> discuss at the meeting because of late posting had better be
>> _really_ important.  If there are no such criticisms, I'd
>> expect the period of WG review after the IETF meeting ends to
>> be very short.
>> 

Yep.  Realized that some hours after I sent it.  Sorry

>> that means that the topic should be on the agenda and
>> discussion should start within the next week or so.
>> 
>> 
>> Disclaimer: I signed up as co-chair based on what appeared to
>> be WG consensus that we wanted to move things along quickly.
>> While I'm certainly happy to consider special circumstances
>> (e.g., I know August is a vacation month for many people and
>> that a WG Last Call started in August should not terminate
>> before September), "quickly" can be accomplished only if we
>> are relatively intolerant of side discussions, off-topic
>> comments, failure to make comments, or to ask for more time
>> with a reason, will be taken as evidence of either agreement
>> or indifference.   If anyone objects to that strategy, he or
>> she should speak up now and try to convince others that a
>> slower and more deliberative pace is better and more likely
>> to produce significantly better results.
>> 
>> regards to all,
>>    john
>>  
>>