Subject: RE: WG chair use of the ID-tracker: Proposed tool additions

From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 10:16:24 +0300

With the risk of playing a broken record, I would reiterate the idea
that cross-area expert reviews need not be separate states, but can
rather be part of the WGLC. This asks more coordination between the WG
chairs and the expert teams, but would avoid inserting process-blocking
states before or after WGLC. 

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 4:23 PM
> To: Allison Mankin
> Cc: 'Working Group Chairs'
> Subject: Re: WG chair use of the ID-tracker: Proposed tool additions
> 
> Allison Mankin wrote:
> > Eliot,
> > 
> > Your question made me realize that the variation in WG 
> practices means 
> > we should make the explanation clearer.  Some WGs, eg. DNSEXT, will 
> > not send a document to WGLC till a minimum number of formal 
> reviews are done
> > (their current number is five, I believe).    Some groups have 2-3.
> > Others don't use formal reviews.  The state is indeed 
> purely elective.
> 
> Just as a data point, the IESG retreat ten days ago 
> reiterated on the importance of early cross-area review, 
> *before* WGLC, to limit late surprises. Lisa Dusseault now 
> owns this topic within the IESG, and you will hear more in 
> due course. From a process point of view this is indeed 
> elective, but there are good reasons, that have been 
> discussed on this list in the past, for doing it.
> 
>      Brian
> 
> 
>

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 11:06:04 +0200

Dan,

One possibility is to send the announcement of WGLC to the IETF-Announce
list.  One additional possibility is for the AD to block document
advancement on external review when he/she sees fit.  It'd fit the "I'll
trust you until..." model.

Eliot

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 13:01:36 +0200

Hi,

> states before or after WGLC. 

Ok, so would the following work:

Change the draft to:

 * Add "In WG Last Call" to the possible next states for the
   "Active WG Document" state

 * Let the sub-states of the "WG Document Awaiting Reviews"
   state also be possible sub-states of "In WG Last Call"

 * Permit multiple parallel sub-states, so it is possible to
   indicate e.g., for a document in "In WG Last Call", that
   it is the 2nd last call, and also that the document is
   awaiting cross-area review

?

Regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 15:45:58 +0200

> Ok, so would the following work:

Flexibility is good, but too much flexibility can make us unclear
what the "normal" procedure is. However, if we can allow for
review states at any point in the WG process I think that gives
us freedom to find the best practice. Getting review states
recognized in the tracker is already a big win IMHO.

     Brian

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 16:04:32 +0200

Hi,

  Commenting on my own proposal...

I've received some private comments and had some discussion which
makes me think that it's probably a good idea to keep WGLC as a
fairly pure state, and not mix it with the review state.  This
doesn't diminish the importance of getting all kinds of comments,
including comments resulting from cross-area review, at WGLC
time, but it seems better to keep the "Awaiting <whatever>"
sub-states for the explicit "WG Document Awaiting Reviews" state.

So I'm inclined to withdraw the suggestion below, only keeping
the last bullet, with a changed wording:

 * Permit multiple parallel sub-states, so it is possible to
   indicate e.g., for a document in "WG Document Awaiting
   Reviews", that 4 reviews are required, and also that the
   document is awaiting cross-area review and MIB review.

Regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 16:03:18 +0200

All,

to my mind "WG Last Call" is a point where we have a
document that is not going through changes, everyone
has the same document to comment on.

Outcome can be:

Ready to move

Needs update before moving

Needs update update and the another wg last call
  - limited to changes, or
  - on the entire document

Possibly also: "We need need to do some other review of some
kind".

But neither of these are sub-states of "WG last call", if they are
sub-states at all, I guess WG external reviews motivates state
of its own, they should be sub-states of "Active document".

Point here is that "WG Last Call" is time limited, and state
machine will more complicated than flexible if we start sub-stating
it.

/Loa

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email-masked]] Sent: Tuesday,
>>>> May 16, 2006 4:23 PM
>>>> To: Allison Mankin
>>>> Just as a data point, the IESG retreat ten days ago reiterated on
>>>> the importance of early cross-area review, *before* WGLC, to limit
>>>> late surprises. Lisa Dusseault now owns this topic within the IESG,
>>>> and you will hear more in due course. From a process point of view
>>>> this is indeed elective, but there are good reasons, that have been

-- 
Loa Andersson

Principal Networking Architect
Acreo AB                           phone:  +46 8 632 77 14
Isafjordsgatan 22                  mobile: +46 739 81 21 64
Kista, Sweden                      email:  [email-masked]
                                           [email-masked]

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 16:11:24 +0200

Hi Brian,

> recognized in the tracker is already a big win IMHO.

Right.  However, as I just wrote in another message, commenting on
my own proposal, maybe it's not right to add these to the WGLC
state, in particular.

I'm going to shut up regarding this now, and wait for others to
weigh in and comment on the options; and try to forge some text
only after some consensus is apparent.

Regards,

	Henrik

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 10:30:12 -0400

Will there be a field to identify who has responsibility to complete
said review, or to see that said review is completed?

dbh

> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 9:46 AM
> To: Henrik Levkowetz
> Cc: Working Group Chairs