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

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 06:39:10 -0700

Brian,

As you know I've been in favor of early, pre-WGLC cross-area
review.  I do think that it's not necessarily good to add more
delays to the IETF doc process, which is already very intermittent
and already tends to multi-year runs for the work.  When we take
several years due to time gaps, there are effects on quality and
on takeup.

This comment is a prelude to asking that the state you've requested
for Cross-Area Review not be "Awaiting Cross-Area Review", which
implies a blocking process.  Maybe the cross area review effort 
can be parallel, and part of the general discussion that brings the
document from its rough form to its top form.  

A blcoking review state is for the groups who are holding hostages because
they must force those final reviews.  We might want to drop Awaiting
in general and only use the sub-states to make when the state is meant
to be formalized and blocking.

Allison

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 18:11:59 +0200

> document from its rough form to its top form.  

Absolutely agree. This is a classical critical path diagram question-
there might be a point where you wanted to block on cross-area review,
but it should not be artificially inserted in the critical path.
Looks like we need parallelism in the tracker ;-)

     Bria

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 20:43:08 +0200

I know you guys hate this, but in my opinion IETF last call is cross
area review.

Eliot

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 16:38:01 -0400

> Looks like we need parallelism in the tracker ;-)
Hmm -- implement it as a non-deterministic FSA?

		--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

---

From: Ted Faber <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 15:20:30 -0700

> I know you guys hate this, but in my opinion IETF last call is cross

I don't think anyone denies that.  It's the missing "early" that has
people in a tizzy.

-- 
Ted Faber
http://www.isi.edu/~faber           PGP: http://www.isi.edu/~faber/pubkeys.asc
Unexpected attachment on this mail? See http://www.isi.edu/~faber/FAQ.html#SIG

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 08:37:40 +0200

> I don't think anyone denies that.  It's the missing "early" that has
My fear is that WGs will have even more of a problem taking comments at
IETF-wide last call than they already do.

Eliot

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 15:41:21 +0200

> I know you guys hate this, but in my opinion IETF last call is cross

Yes, but it comes at a time when the WG has finished its main work.
We have plenty of running code proof that major problems do get found
at this stage and that they can be hard or impossible to fix.

     Brian

---

From: Ted Faber <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 09:08:16 -0700

> IETF-wide last call than they already do.

One hopes that would be somewhat mitigated by there being fewer
cross-area comments made at IETF last call. :-)

But it's all speculation at this point, and a perfectly reasonable
speculation on your part, IMHO.