Subject: re: I-D submission tool draft

From: [email-masked] (scott bradner)
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 08:38:45 -0400 (EDT)

this looks pretty good but a few comments

this seems to have taken the approach of taking a fully formed ID text
and trying to parse and check it, not an unreasonable approach but was
the alternative of having the submitter fill in some or all of the meta
data on a submission form (authors names & contacts, filename,
boilerplate options etc) considered?

I think that this process is missing a chance to deal with one of the
confusions about the IETF's process - if the submission process included
a click-through agreement covering the IPR (copyright & patent
disclosure) requirements it would eliminate any possibility for the
submitter to claim that they did not know or for the submitter to say
that some other text in the document negates the boilerplate - this is a
proposal that has come up a few times over the last few years, if we
create a tool for people to use to submit IDs it would seem to be a good
time to implement such a process

I will say that I'm not fond of the idea of requiring that WG chairs
pre-approve the submission of -00 WG IDs, as a WG chair I'd rather be
able to enforce me getting a chance to review the document first - I'm
fine with letting a WG chair be able to pre approve but I do not think
it should be the only way that the process should be able to work

Scott

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:39:26 +0200

Thanks for the comments, Scott.

    I'm replying in a separate mail, to you and to the tools-discuss
mailing list.

	Henrik

scott bradner wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:05:50 -0400

> it should be the only way that the process should be able to work

I agree.  While both submission of the document and approval by the chair 
are necessary, there's no reason to require a particular order.  If I'm not 
available to approve a new document (say, because I'm on a train returning 
from an IETF meeting), the system should wait until I can deal.  It should 
_not_ force the submitter to wait -- computers are much better at waiting 
than people are.

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

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 07:46:38 +0300 (EEST)

I stripped off [email-masked]...

> > it should be the only way that the process should be able to work

I'm not sure if I see this problem.  The process in practice could be
that the WG chairs ask the authors to send the document to them, they
will review it [and iterate as needed, and when done], send in the
pre-approval and the the document at the same time.

There's no actual requirement that the authors themselves send in the
-00 documents.  There aren't that many per WG to make it too big a
trouble for WG chairs..
 
> _not_ force the submitter to wait -- computers are much better at waiting 

I don't see forcing the submitter to wait a problem at all.  It just
changes the practical process a little bit, that's all.

-- 
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: [email-masked] (scott bradner)
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:21:59 -0400 (EDT)

Bill says:
        actually, i think that the WG chairs are the -wrong- people
        to ensure that the right text is part of each -00 IDs. you
        really want proper legal review of each -00 id to ensure that
        the copyright text is correct/intact.

I do not recall saying anything about the WG chairs doing this

the reason the WG chairs are in the loop today (and tomorrow) is to
ensure that the WG thinks the document should be a WG document, it
has nothing to do with WG chairs checking boilerplate

Scott

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:54:10 -0700 (PDT)

% I think that this process is missing a chance to deal with one of the
% confusions about the IETF's process - if the submission process included
% a click-through agreement covering the IPR (copyright & patent
% disclosure) requirements it would eliminate any possibility for the
% submitter to claim that they did not know or for the submitter to say
% that some other text in the document negates the boilerplate - this is a
% proposal that has come up a few times over the last few years, if we
% create a tool for people to use to submit IDs it would seem to be a good
% time to implement such a process

	if there is a desire to ensure that the proper text 
	is include with each ID, then this is a reasonable
	request.  it may not be sufficent however. 

% I will say that I'm not fond of the idea of requiring that WG chairs
% pre-approve the submission of -00 WG IDs, as a WG chair I'd rather be
% able to enforce me getting a chance to review the document first - I'm
% fine with letting a WG chair be able to pre approve but I do not think
% it should be the only way that the process should be able to work

% 
% Scott

--bill

---

From: [email-masked] (scott bradner)
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 22:50:52 -0400 (EDT)

bill continues to insist:
        Hum....  this follows from the last para of your email, excerpted
        below, where you intimate that an idea for "making" this work is
        to require WG chairs to pre-approve the submission of -00 WG IDs.

nope - the WG chairs decide if the ID is one the WG wants to be seen
as a WG document - I said nothing about teh WG chairs checking the 
boilerplate - this is what happens today (no change in process)

Scott

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:50:47 -0700 (PDT)

% 
% Bill says:
%         actually, i think that the WG chairs are the -wrong- people
%         to ensure that the right text is part of each -00 IDs. you
%         really want proper legal review of each -00 id to ensure that
%         the copyright text is correct/intact.
% 
% I do not recall saying anything about the WG chairs doing this

Scott

% 
% the reason the WG chairs are in the loop today (and tomorrow) is to
% ensure that the WG thinks the document should be a WG document, it
% has nothing to do with WG chairs checking boilerplate

	yes, nessasary but not sufficent.  Most WG chairs are not
	licensed legal advisors.

% 
% Scott
% 

-- 
--bill

Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).