Subject: WGLC How long ?

From: 박수홍 <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 01:37:02 +0000 (GMT)

Hi,

While looking at RFC 2418 for the WG guideline, one question
occurs in
my mind, thus I am sending it to this list.

Section 7.4 says "The decision to issue a working group

Last-Call is at the discretion of the WG Chair working

with the Area Director."

However, I failed to see any mention for its period. In general,

we issue the WGLC for two weeks. Is it a traditional manner

regardless of the guideline ?

Section 8 says "This Last Call will announce the intention

of
the IESG to consider the document, and it will solicit

final comments
from the IETF within a period of two weeks."

Just curious...

Thanks in advance and happy new year.

Daniel

Co-Chair, 16NG Working Group.

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 22:43:07 -0600

Daniel

I generally believe WGLC should not be shorter than 2 weeks the first time 
it is given for an ID.  Subsequent WGLCs, say for a small but noticeable 
change in the doc during revising the doc for AD comments or WGLC comments, 
can be shorter.

If an ID seems to me, as chair, to be less stable or there is one or two in 
the WG that have problems with it (but they haven't swayed the WG to their 
position), and I still want WGLC to occur, I might extend the time out to 3 
or even 4 weeks, but no longer than 4.

Also, if a fair amount of the subject matter is covered by experts from 
another WG or in the case that several WGs cover what's written in a 
particular ID in my WG, I will give this ID more time in WGLC so that 
others from those other WGs have a chance to see the WGLC notification and 
cycle time to do a review (which takes time).  In this case, sending a WGLC 
notice into those other WGs is usually done by me when doing a WGLC of an 
ID that crosses WG charter boundaries with another WG to ensure that other 
WG has a chance to see the WGLC announcement.

I have observed these general guidelines over the years in WGs I work in 
before I became a WG chair, so these are not invented by me.

I also clear (or just notify) a lot of things with the ADs, so they are not 
surprised if they are sent a note from someone complaining about what I'm 
doing.  ;-)

hope this helps

James
TSVWG chair

At 01:37 AM 1/4/2007 +0000, =?euc-kr?B?udq89sir?= wrote:
>occurs in my mind, thus I am sending it to this list.
>
>of the IESG to consider the document, and it will solicit
>final comments from the IETF within a period of two weeks."
>
>Just curious...
>

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 11:54:06 +0000

I have always taken two weeks as the minimum. The object
is to get quality review in a timely period. Set it too
short and WG members can rightly complain that they
do not have time, or did not see the notice. Set it too
long and it will go on the back burner and not get done.
Although I usually use two weeks it occurs to me that
it is actauuly slightly too short, since two weeks is the
duration of a "standard" long vacation.

Two weeks encompasing an IETF or Xmas in Europe is of
course too short. Also it always seems reasonable
to extend when a subject matter expert requests a
limited extesion.

- Stewart

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 08:43:06 -0800

Stewart,

> duration of a "standard" long vacation.

On the other hand, four weeks is so long that people will put off  
reviewing the document.

The important thing here is that last call should be done when the  
chairs and authors think there general agreement based on discussion  
that the document is stable and ready to go.  A last call should not  
be used as the first review of a document.  Working group members  
should not wait until the last call to send comments.  Last call is  
meant as the final check.

Bob

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 11:03:54 -0800

Hi -

> From: "Stewart Bryant" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 3:54 AM
> Subject: Re: WGLC How long ?
> 
...

I like to set a two-week limit on a (first) WGLC, but with
the proviso that if someone is willing to commit to reviewing
the document, but will need more time, we will extend the
deadline to accommodate them.  There have been very few
requests for more time.  What I've found is that,
with few exceptions, the WG participants who care enough about
a document to be willing to publicly commit to reviewing it
also care enough to be able to make time to do so surprisingly
quickly.

Randy

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:40:35 -0800

I think it is important for the chairs to use some common sense here.  
The rare documents may not need WGLC at all. The NFSv4 document will  
take many people more than few weeks to read. If the time overlaps  
with a week of IETF meetings, or  the week before the draft  
deadlines, more time may be needed. For most the RAI WGs, I think  
that 2 weeks has worked out as a pretty reasonable starting point for  
selecting a WGLC period.

One of the thing I am looking for as AD is to be able to ask the  
chairs if the WG has consensus around the document - being able to  
point at a WGLC that was long enough for the WG to actually comment  
is pretty convincing for that. Some WG may have a style where they  
comment much faster than other working group. If you look at SIGTRAN  
for example, often half the frequent contributors will comment on  
some issue within a few days of it being raised. Some other working  
groups I occasionally times feel like the mailing list gets read  
three times a year by many  of the contributors (ok, I hope this is  
not true but some times it feels that way).

Cullen <with my individual hat on>