Subject: Re: [newtrk] question one for newtrk

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:55:47 -0400 (EDT)

Spencer notes and asks:
> I'm seeing 33 postings in this thread - does this mean we've discussed
> the question enough?

not sure - the discussion seemed fragmented and unfocused

> Do we have a proposed consensus position?

I did not see much support for a 1-stage assumption for the 1st IESG-approval
stage (but as someone pointed out, 1-stage would not mean no-revisions)
so I guess we could say that there is consensus that there should be
multiple ISG-approval stages

sanity check - does anyone dissagree?

> Is there a question two?

yes (stay tuned)

Scott
.
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: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 07:08:57 -0500

Hi, Scott,

I would love to agree with something, but I'm not sure what you're
> multiple ISG-approval stages

"ISG" is a typo for IESG, right? ("New acronyms do appear from time to
time")

> sanity check - does anyone dissagree?

Question one was

> So the question I'd like the WG to first discuss is:
>
>   "Should the first stage of IESG review of a standards track
document be
>   done under the assumption that few documents will be revised after
first
>   publication (and this must be "correct" the first time) or should
it
>   assume that we will have a functioning multi-stage IETF standards
track?
>
> (leaving aside the number of stages for now)

So you're asking if there is consensus that the IESG should expect
multiple passes at a standards-track document, right?

If "yes" - I thought there is consensus for getting experience with a
RFC-level stable specification and then revising it.

Others?

I didn't express an opinion in this thread about number of maturity
levels, but I've got one. I'll wait until you ask this question
explicitly.

Spencer

.

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:51:52 -0600 (MDT)

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

> If "yes" - I thought there is consensus for getting experience with
> a RFC-level stable specification and then revising it.
>
> Others?

Yes, that was my reading of the Question One, and I agree that there
seemed to be a "yes" consensus: multiple
passes/stages/iterations/versions/whatever are required to get
experience with (i.e., to test) an RFC and then revise it.

I am no longer sure that Scott's interpretation of his question is the
same as ours though. I tried to identify the causes of this situation
in the previous e-mail.

Alex.
.