Subject: resolving varous CCing things

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 11:26:07 -0700

I've talked to Barbara about CCing issues - it seems that we don't have 
documented procedures on a couple of things, and that some things have been 
done on a "time available" basis, which is nice when it works, but not nice 
when people depend on a procedure that only works part of the time.

So what we will do is:

- The internet-draft submission folks will NOT send any notifications 
except to i-d-announce about new I-Ds. They have tried to be helpful in teh 
past, but don't have time in the crunch, so it's better to be consistent.

- The Last Calls have traditionally not been CCed to WG mailing lists, 
while Protocol Actions have been. This doesn't make sense. WG mailing lists 
will be added to the Last Calls.
Note: Due to the way the I-D tracker generates Last Calls, the changeover 
may be gradual. Don't expect consistency this week!

- Requests to publish have traditionally been replied to only to the 
submitter. The secretariat will be switching the I-D submission into RT, 
and we'll see whether it's easy to automate sending responses to people 
CCed on the request too - if they can't do it efficiently and consistently, 
they shouldn't do it at all.

That's today's positon - does this make sense to people?

                Harald

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 07:46:20 +0300 (EEST)

> past, but don't have time in the crunch, so it's better to be consistent.

Just clarifying..

Did you mean that for *invididual* submissions, WGs will not be 
Cc:'ed? Or that any submission, it's sent only to the id-announce?

> they shouldn't do it at all.

IMHO, there is no need to send the "request to submission ack" to the 
WG list.  The submitter and/or the ADs or chairs should be enough.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 08:08:54 -0400

Harald - have you addressed the issue of announcing the publication of new 
IPR disclosures?  We've run into a problem in the dhc WG where an IPR 
disclosure did not come to the attention of the WG until IETF last call, 
which was several months after the disclosure was first published on ietf.org.

- Ralph

At 11:26 AM 6/1/2004 -0700, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>documented procedures on a couple of things, and that some things have 
>been done on a "time available" basis, which is nice when it works, but 
>not nice when people depend on a procedure that only works part of the time.
>
>So what we will do is:
>
>except to i-d-announce about new I-Ds. They have tried to be helpful in 
>teh past, but don't have time in the crunch, so it's better to be consistent.
>
>while Protocol Actions have been. This doesn't make sense. WG mailing 
>lists will be added to the Last Calls.
>CCed on the request too - if they can't do it efficiently and 
>consistently, they shouldn't do it at all.
>

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 23:00:05 -0700

> Cc:'ed? Or that any submission, it's sent only to the id-announce?

I intended to say "for individual submission". thanks for calling this out!
> WG list.  The submitter and/or the ADs or chairs should be enough.

this never said "the wg list" - it would be the sender's option who he CCed.
But it may not make sense to do that, even....

                    Harald

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 09:03:54 -0700

Harald,

> except to i-d-announce about new I-Ds. They have tried to be helpful in
teh
> while Protocol Actions have been. This doesn't make sense. WG mailing
lists
> may be gradual. Don't expect consistency this week!

Isn't this a little inconsistent? It seems like if the Secretariat is
willing to announce some actions on WG documents to WG lists, it should be
willing to announce all - publications, last calls, and protocol actions. Of
course, they could also not announce any, but I think it would certainly be
more helpful if they could. And if they are willing to announce last calls,
then I'd be curious to know why announcing publication of WG documents is so
much more of a burden (note: I'm only speaking of WG documents here, not
individual documents).

            jak

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 15:34:42 -0400

>>>>> "Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]> writes:

    Harald> So what we will do is:

    Harald> - The internet-draft submission folks will NOT send any
    Harald> notifications except to i-d-announce about new I-Ds. They
    Harald> have tried to be helpful in teh past, but don't have time
    Harald> in the crunch, so it's better to be consistent.

If this is all we have time for, it's what we should do.  But I
suspect I'm not the only one who ends up depending on ID announcements
being copied to WG lists.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 13:08:58 -0700

> being copied to WG lists.

As someone else said on wgchairs, it's not a big deal for the author/editor 
to pick up the announce and forward it - IF the author/editor knows that 
he/she has to do it for him/herself.

So I agree with you - but think that a regular processs that "does what is 
expected" every time is better than one whose behaviour is load dependent.

NOTE: WG draft announcements (draft-ietf-wgname) will still be copied to 
the WG list!

              Harald

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 16:27:11 -0700

--On 2. juni 2004 08:08 -0400 Ralph Droms <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Harald - have you addressed the issue of announcing the publication of
> new IPR disclosures?  We've run into a problem in the dhc WG where an IPR

We've verified that the WG SHOULD have been notified. So this will be done 
better in the future.

               Harald

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 10:01:39 -0700

--On 3. juni 2004 12:10 -0400 Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Wednesday, June 02, 2004 13:08:58 -0700 Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Is this determination made based on the filename, or on the status of the
> draft as indicated in WG charter pages and in the ID-tracker?

Based on the status in the databases used to generate the WG charter pages.

> Many groups have documents which started out as individual submissions
> and then were adopted as working group work items.  Can we expect that
> announcements of these will be forwarded to the appropriate working
> groups?

Yes, if the databases have been updated based on the WG's decision.
Note that the simplest way to update the database may be submitting a 
revised version with a draft-ietf filename!

                     Harald

---

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 22:12:05 -0400

> new IPR disclosures?  

(At least to the chairs, please!)

allman

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 12:10:07 -0400

Many groups have documents which started out as individual submissions and 
then were adopted as working group work items.  Can we expect that 
announcements of these will be forwarded to the appropriate working groups?

-- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) <[email-masked]>
   Sr. Research Systems Programmer
   School of Computer Science - Research Computing Facility
   Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA