Subject: WGLCs & Draft Submission Deadlines

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 18:15:59 +0200

Hi all,

IETF participants and working group chairs typically wake up when the 
draft submission deadlines approach. I have noticed that many working 
group chairs start their WGLCs around the draft submission deadline 
dates. If an IETF participants is not even busy during that time then 
there is something seriously wrong.

In this case I think it would be useful to extend the duration of the 
WGLC (e.g., until the beginning of the IETF meeting), unless you don't 
want to see too many comments for whatever reason.

Ciao
Hannes

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 17:49:54 +0100

> want to see too many comments for whatever reason.

Good point. Why not contribute a page to the wiki?

http://www1.tools.ietf.org/group/wgchairs/wiki/WikiStart

     Brian

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 09:59:05 -0800

I actually explicitly *don't* do working group last calls at that  
time. I do them following IETF meetings, expecting updated I-Ds to  
materialize and wanting the authors to have some time to think about  
them. Doing a WGLC just before an IETF meeting seems to me like a  
poor management style.

On Mar 7, 2007, at 8:15 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> IETF participants and working group chairs typically wake up when  
> the draft submission deadlines approach. I have noticed that many  
> working group chairs start their WGLCs around the draft submission  
> deadline dates. If an IETF participants is not even busy during  
> that time then there is something seriously wrong.
>
> In this case I think it would be useful to extend the duration of  
> the WGLC (e.g., until the beginning of the IETF meeting), unless  
> you don't want to see too many comments for whatever reason.
>
> Ciao
> Hannes

---

From: "Tobias Gondrom" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 19:17:50 +0100

Hi Fred, 
I disagree with this general statement.

(At first: Usually I try to launch a WGLC after an IETF meeting or so
that it is finished at least one week _before_ the cut-off date, so that
the authors have a chance to include the discussed changes. Otherwise
you have to wait ages to get the revised draft out.)

Due to the cut-off date two weeks before a meeting there will be no new
drafts during that period anyway, so it seems acceptable to me to open a
WGLC and effectively use that time for this. Plus this way you can
discuss any unresolved disputes at the meeting if necessary (and maybe
need to make a second WGLC afterwards). I agree that the WGLC should not
be closed before the end of the WG meeting in such a case. 
I see no problem with the rest and believe it is dependent on the
specific situation of the WG and the draft which time suits best for a
WGLC. This should be at the discretion of the WG chair. 

Just my 5 cents, Tobias

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fred Baker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 6:59 PM
> To: Hannes Tschofenig
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: WGLCs & Draft Submission Deadlines
>

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 10:50:10 -0800

Fred Baker wrote:
> I actually explicitly *don't* do working group last calls at that time. 
> I do them following IETF meetings, expecting updated I-Ds to materialize 
> and wanting the authors to have some time to think about them. Doing a 
> WGLC just before an IETF meeting seems to me like a poor management style.
> 

Speaking as a co-Chair who just issued a 3 week WGLC that ends just before IETF #68...

If that's when the draft is ready, then why not start the WGLC?

IMO, you are ready to start WGLC when there are no more 'TBD' sections
that you know need to be there (Security Considerations comes to
mind for some reason ;-).

Andy

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 18:58:25 +0000

Speaking as another WG chair who just requested a WGLC:

>WGLC and effectively use that time for this.
>
+1

>Plus this way you can
>need to make a second WGLC afterwards).
>
That was the main reason why I requested WGLC.

>I agree that the WGLC should not
Agreed.

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 11:37:48 -0800

> If that's when the draft is ready, then why not start the WGLC?

if that's when the draft is ready, fine. In my working group (v6ops),  
my observation has been that we get a draft (often several), dicuss  
it, and decide it is ready for ratification on the list, so I then go  
to the list to get it ratified. The result may be an updated draft,  
but then it doesn't usually need another "last call", it needs to go  
to the IESG.

So from my perspective - not being dogmatic here, but reflecting my  
viewpoint - the f2f discussion is the start of the bringing-working- 
group-to-closure process, not the end of it.

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 12:24:08 -0800

Fred Baker wrote:
> if that's when the draft is ready, fine. In my working group (v6ops), my 
> observation has been that we get a draft (often several), dicuss it, and 
> decide it is ready for ratification on the list, so I then go to the 
> list to get it ratified. The result may be an updated draft, but then it 
> doesn't usually need another "last call", it needs to go to the IESG.
> 
> viewpoint - the f2f discussion is the start of the 
> bringing-working-group-to-closure process, not the end of it.
> 
> 

Hey, my WG is already behind schedule!  Every week counts!
In this case, we have been trying to get the draft
ready for WGLC for almost a year.  We agreed on the
mailing list to start LC as soon as the -06 draft came out
(later than expected, what a surprise).

IMO, having a draft in WGLC during an IETF might actually
get some clue-full people to read it or show up at the meeting,
who might not otherwise be a participant in that WG.

Andy

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 22:42:39 +0200

> From: Andy Bierman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 10:24 PM
> To: Fred Baker
> Cc: [email-masked]
> > but then it doesn't usually need another "last call", it 
> needs to go to the IESG.
> > 
> In this case, we have been trying to get the draft ready for 
> WGLC for almost a year.  We agreed on the mailing list to 
> start LC as soon as the -06 draft came out (later than 
> expected, what a surprise).
> 
> IMO, having a draft in WGLC during an IETF might actually get 
> some clue-full people to read it or show up at the meeting, 

Speaking as a former and maybe future WG chair, I believe that I am
close to Andy's position on this. Let us face realities, it is during
the weeks prior and during the IETF meeting that much of the reading of
I-Ds happens. Why should we not use this for channeling the reviews in
WGLC comments, that can be discussed during the face-to-face meetings,
or in the bar at the IETF venue? 

The only amendment I would make as WG chair is to automatically add one
more week to what I would have counted as the usual WGLC period. This
would allow folks who are busy with other tasks during the IETF meeting
week recover and have an opportunity to draft their review. 

Dan