Subject: Re: [newtrk] question one for newtrk

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:47:54 -0400 (EDT)

Spencer asks:
> "ISG" is a typo for IESG, right? ("New acronyms do appear from time to
> time")
yup

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

to be more precise, not just "multiple passes" (which could happen
with a single stage standards track with updated versions of the
document) but "multiple passes" where the designation of the result
of the pass have different names (e.g. proposed standard and Internet 
standard)

> 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

next message

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

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:42:59 -0600 (MDT)

> of the pass have different names (e.g. proposed standard and Internet

Scott,

	It seems to me that you are changing Question One on the fly.
When I first read and responded to your Question One, I interpreted it
as:

	Q1: Should IETF specs go through multiple stages/passes?

I answered "yes" (assuming we care about specs long-term quality).

I expected you to declare a "yes" consensus and then try to classify
"multiple stages/passes" into one or more named stages. One stage
classification would then necessarily assume multiple passes and
multi-stage classification may include multiple passes.

That's not what seems to be happening though! Your comments above seem
to imply that you were actually asking Q1ab:

	Q1ab: Regardless of whether unnamed passes are allowed,
	     should IETF specs have multiple named stages?

It is impossible for me to answer Q1ab in a meaningful way, because my
answers to Q1a and Q1b below would be different:

	Q1a: Assuming no unnamed in-stage passes/versions,
	     should IETF specs have multiple named stages?

	Q1b: Assuming unnamed in-stage passes/versions,
	     should IETF specs have multiple named stages?

My answers would be "yes (to emulate passes)" to Q1a and "probably no"
to Q1b.

I hope you can restate your Question One in "Q1" (or better) form and
declare a "yes" consensus before we move on to your Q2. The latter
should also be adjusted/clarified accordingly.

Thank you,

Alex.
.

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:28:00 -0400 (EDT)

sorry if I confused you 

I thought I was clear that in any case there must be (by the nature
of the beast) multiple in-stage revisions - if I was not - please
understand that is what I assume

Scott
.

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:27:26 -0600 (MDT)

> understand that is what I assume

Bare with me, please. If you have always assumed multiple in-stage
revisions, then why not declare a "yes" consensus to Question One? Why
even ask that question? I will quote it here for reference:

  "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?"

If we assume "multiple in-stage revisions", then we have to assume
that many "documents will be revised after first publication", right?
How can it be any other way?

Hmm... On the other hand that does not imply multi-stage IETF
standards track! I guess the second "or should it ..." part of the
question is not really a negation of the first part :-(.

I guess the problem with the question is that it intermingles "first
stage" and "first publication", which are not identical when multiple
in-stage revisions exist.

I think there is consensus that IETF needs multiple revisions. We are
yet to see whether there is consensus that IETF needs multiple stages.
Yet your second question already assumes multiple stages on the
grounds that there was no consensus on the first (broken?) question.
Why not assume a single-stage track instead?

I apologize if I am the only one seeing this mess.

Thanks,

Alex.
.