Subject: [newtrk] An idea that is smaller than a WGS.....

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 22:57:41 -0800

this is slightly related to the idea pushed in 
draft-loughney-which-standards, of separate publication of status of 
documents....

what if WGs were to keep a page easily findable, where they listed not just 
the names of the drafts, but what they thought of them?

Such as:

draft-ietf-wurzel-hamster-09 is thought by the WG to be stable enough for 
trial implementation and nits review. We want to wait a bit before we send 
it to the IESG.

draft-ietf-wurzel-rabbit-03 turned out to be a Bad Idea. We're not going to 
follow up this further.

draft-eenie-wurzel-daft-02, draft-meenie-wurzel-dumb-07 and 
draft-moe-wurzel-deaf-04 are being considered as alternatives for WG 
adoption for the deafmute protocol. External review of candidates with 
respect to the criteria in draft-ietf-wurzel-requirements is very 
important, but should be done before September 15, 2004.

I believe some WGs do something this already - example pages and people 
willing to speak from experience would be very welcome - perhaps we could 
find an EXISTING practice to recommend?

                    Harald

.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:18:05 -0600

Hi, Harald,

This idea seems different from WGS, not smaller.

If I understand your note, it's the WGS version of John L's RFC status
idea ("this is the PS, these are the changes we are working on for the
next version, these are the reasons why the previous version was a bad
idea").

Capturing what the WG thinks about the history of a draft would never
be a bad thing, I think.

It could also accommodate WGs like multi6, which are discussing a
bunch of individual IDs that aren't WG IDs yet, so you have to scrape
the mailing list to find them all. When I look at WG agenda pages for
each face-to-face meeting, I usually find drafts that I didn't realize
were relevant, especially for WGs where I don't participate heavily on
the mailing lists.

I would like to have the WGSs gathered in one place, for a couple of
reasons -

- There are groups of protocols that come from multiple working groups
but work together. I could visualize WGSs from MMUSIC, SIP, and
SIPPING that are all needed to make some application work, for
instance.

This would accommodate our often-stated preference for WGs with
limited scope (the downside is, it's not always easy to figure out
which WG has done something, so hitting a hundred WG pages
periodically to see what's becoming "stable" doesn't work for me). It
would be nice if people didn't have to hunt WGS down.

- We've just had an exchange on this mailing list that talked about
criteria for WGS ("has it been reviewed by an ART team?"). This idea
hasn't made it into a draft yet, so I don't know the details and don't
have a sense of what the mailing list thinks, but if there are any
criteria for WGS beyond the WG saying "this is a WGS", gathering the
WGSs would make it easier to find the WGSs for verification that these
criteria were met.

Visualize the ADs having to check the announcement archives every week
to find out what WGSs have popped up in their WGs lately.

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 12:57 AM
Subject: [newtrk] An idea that is smaller than a WGS.....

> newtrk
resources:_____________________________________________________
> mhonarc archive:
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:00:15 -0500

> the names of the drafts, but what they thought of them?

I like the idea.  a few suggestions:

1. I'd like to see this kept on the IETF's page for the WG rather than in
random places and in random format.  e.g. Give each WG chair a password and
let them update the status of documents as they change.

2. Rather than (just) arbitrary prose, I'd like to see a small number of
status codes.  e.g. "not under discussion", "currently under discussion",
"wg snapshot - external review solicited", "abandoned".  For completeness,
also display "in IETF last call", "awaiting RFC publication", "published" 
as appropriate in the same space after a draft is no longer in control
of the WG.

3. I'd like to see the date at which a draft was declared to have a certain
status.  (so you can look at the page and see whether there's been any change
since the last time you looked)

4. I still think we need some announcement that a WG snapshot is up for 
external review.

5. I do not think that a WG should be empowered to say that a particular
document is "stable", suitable for deployment, etc.

.