Subject: WG LCs immediately before and during the IETF

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:44:00 -0700

I recall there was a discussion on this before the last IETF as well.
We see WG chairs issuing LCs on documents right before the IETF all the
time.  Sometimes, the LC ends right with the IETF draft deadlines or
sometimes, I've seen the LC ending during the week of the IETF.  That is
also the busiest time for the active participants of the IETF and it
really mitigates the chance of getting all the LC comments and reviews.
I realize that most LCs on WG documents are only 2-week LCs, but, if the
time chosen for the LC is around the IETF time, I think the chairs
should allow more time (say, 4 weeks instead of 2).  I wish we make that
recommended practice so that we don't run into this around every IETF
timeframe.  I've seen some WGs go with 4-week LCs, especially during the
summer when many European participants may be on vacation and that seems
reasonable to me.  I think we need to apply that philosophy for LCs
around the IETF timeframe as well. 

Thoughts? 

Vidya

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:21:33 -0400

Purely depends on the WG.  For example, speechsc has one and only one
document left, so a WGLC is not a burden.  HOWEVER, an IETF LC would be a
disaster.

> around the IETF timeframe as well.

Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and  affiliated entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted  and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:00:53 -0400

Hi,

> around the IETF timeframe as well.

As you pointed out, choosing IETF time for LC is very often quite  
effective
to get more attention and feed-back (conversely right after IETF  
meetings
is undoubtedly the worst timing since people are clearing their  
backlog emails
received during IETF. Sound like 3-4 weeks LCs (depending on the ID) if
occurring during IETF time is a good practice.

Thanks.

JP.

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 20:15:07 -0700

I completely agree with you that chairs need to pick sensible times  
and take things into account like holidays, time of year, and overlap  
with IETF meetings. There have also been times when several WGs all  
simultaneously did WGLC that each individual would have been fine but  
the combination was sort of brutal. However, I think we also need to  
keep in mind that how WGs do WGLC is varies lots - none is actually  
required. Some documents get none. I think many WGs typically do 2  
weeks. Some documents have a very abbreviated 1 week review as they  
are trivial changes from a previous WGLC document. Some WGLC are  
extended - over a year in some cases.

So the important thing is for the chairs to be thinking about what  
makes sense for the document to get adequate review, check there is  
consensus,  and have things fixed earlier instead of exploding during  
IETF LC.

My 2 cents, Cullen

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:39:58 +0200

Vidya,

This past week draft-ietf-calsify-rfc2445bis-07.txt entered WGLC.  I 
wanted people to have the opportunity to review the document and discuss 
it with the editor at the Chicago meeting, but because there is a lot of 
chaos around meetings, and because it's not the only thing on people's 
plates, I announced a one month last call.  Calsify also has jabber 
sessions.  During last call I've called off the jabber sessions, largely 
so that all last call comments are absolutely seen by all interested 
parties on the mailing list in their entirety, and not summarized in any 
way, or made unclear by chit chat.

So I agree with you that one must be mindful of timing of last calls, 
but I wouldn't set a hard and fast rule about these things.  I could 
envision some very non-controversial WG documents that really only need 
2 weeks.  Two examples might be an informational overview document with 
no normative text or a registration of some form.

Eliot

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:39:08 +0200

Agree that choosing the right time matters, but matters for who ? It
depends of the objective. If the objective is to get some work done and
conclude at the meeting, then I'm enclined to thing a WGLC right before
the meeting is effective. Also, there could be a 2nd WGLC if
significant issues were pointed out during a 1st WGLC. If that helps
progressing a draft, then before the meeting is the appropriate time
windonw.

Thierry.

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:44:00 -0700

-- 
Thierry ERNST, PhD 
INRIA Rocquencourt France Project-Team IMARA / JRU LARA
http://www.lara.prd.fr +33 1 39 63 59 30 (office)
-- 
The coming end of the IPv4 world: http://penrose.uk6x.com

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:46:38 +0200

Hi Eliot,

I have heard the same arguments also before the last IETF meeting when I 
posted my mail on this subject.

The problem is that most people participate in more than one working 
group and I don't see why the bulk of the work in the IETF has to be 
concentrated in the 6 weeks before the meeting.

If you extend the working group last to a month then why don't you ask 
the working group to review it before the IETF meeting (since you do 
that anyway to have an informed discussion during the meeting) and then 
start the WGLC after the meeting.

I believe Vidya is not suggesting to introduce a hard rule but even 
though there is a periodic reminder regarding this topic we see the same 
cases happening with every IETF meeting.

Ciao
Hannes

Eliot Lear wrote:
> wanted people to have the opportunity to review the document and 
> discuss it with the editor at the Chicago meeting, but because there 
> is a lot of chaos around meetings, and because it's not the only thing 
> on people's plates, I announced a one month last call.  Calsify also 
> has jabber sessions.  During last call I've called off the jabber 
> sessions, largely so that all last call comments are absolutely seen 
> by all interested parties on the mailing list in their entirety, and 
> not summarized in any way, or made unclear by chit chat.
>
> envision some very non-controversial WG documents that really only 
> need 2 weeks.  Two examples might be an informational overview 
> document with no normative text or a registration of some form.
>
> Eliot

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:49:04 +0200

If everyone would schedule WGLCs during the submission deadlines and 
right before the meeting then we would get our work done really quickly 
because there is most likely very little review taking place.

I very strongly believe that WGLCs scheduled during that period of time 
will produce fewer comments because most people who are active in the 
IETF have other things todo.

Ciao
Hannes

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:18:11 +0200

Hannes,
> Hi Eliot,
>
> I have heard the same arguments also before the last IETF meeting when 
> I posted my mail on this subject.
>
> that anyway to have an informed discussion during the meeting) and 
> then start the WGLC after the meeting.

Since the WGLC extends past the meeting by a few weeks, what would be 
the benefit?  And there is a drawback.  People know to pay attention to 
WGLC.  They recognize that if they don't understand something in the 
document, now is the time to ask, and that is often best done 
interactively face to face.

Eliot

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:36:32 +0200

If you remind the group again after the IETF week about the ongoing WGLC 
then I guess it is fine.

The IETF meeting is always a good time to ask questions regardless 
whether there is a WGLC or not.

Eliot Lear wrote:
> Hannes,
>> Hi Eliot,
>>
>> I have heard the same arguments also before the last IETF meeting 
>> when I posted my mail on this subject.
>>
>> If you extend the working group last to a month then why don't you 
>> ask the working group to review it before the IETF meeting (since you 
>> do that anyway to have an informed discussion during the meeting) and 
> the benefit?  And there is a drawback.  People know to pay attention 
> to WGLC.  They recognize that if they don't understand something in 
> the document, now is the time to ask, and that is often best done

---

From: "Tobias Gondrom" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:12:35 +0200

Hi, 

just my 5cents and how I tend to handle things in this case: 

Start a WGLC whenever the chairs agree the document is mature for it. 
Typically announce a 2-weeks window and if it closes within 6 weeks
prior to an IETF conference typically "silently" prolong it, by not
formally closing the WGLC until after the conference. If "discusses"
turn up - and at the moment this seems rather the rule than the
exception to me - then we start after resolution based on a new version
a second WGLC which then typically has very good chances to pass (with
all the benefits of the prior face-to-face discussions at IETF and the
first WGLC). 

I think this received the best results for our WG and hope it does not
sound stupid or unethical (planning, but not formally announcing, to
extend a WGLC until after IETF conference) to you...

Just my 5cents, Tobias

Ps.: I would strongly oppose to any proposal to create an IETF "rule"
stating WGLC MUST NOT be started or concluded in a certain time frame
prior to a conference. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 11:37 AM
> To: Eliot Lear
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: WG LCs immediately before and during the IETF
>

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 07:02:57 -0700

Since there are 3 IETF meetings a year that means that we spend 18 weeks of the year at a time when we are 6 weeks before an IETF meeting.

I would much rather the WGLC took place during IETF time so that we have the opportunity for F2F discussion. It is often hard to determine if a mailing list discussion is a lone voice or a concern shared by many. Volume of posts is a poor guide.

The way to ensure that work is spread through the year is through regular synchronous meetings.

> From: Eliot Lear [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 5:18 AM
> To: Hannes Tschofenig
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Since the WGLC extends past the meeting by a few weeks, what 
> would be the benefit?  And there is a drawback.  People know 
> to pay attention to WGLC.  They recognize that if they don't 
> understand something in the document, now is the time to ask, 
> and that is often best done interactively face to face.
> 
> Eliot
> 
>

---

From: "Turner, Sean P." <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:58:36 -0500

I find that the focus is better around the IETF and you're actually going to
get people to read/answer the email.

spt

-----Original Message-----
From: Narayanan, Vidya [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 3:44 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: WG LCs immediately before and during the IETF

I recall there was a discussion on this before the last IETF as well.
We see WG chairs issuing LCs on documents right before the IETF all the
time.  Sometimes, the LC ends right with the IETF draft deadlines or
sometimes, I've seen the LC ending during the week of the IETF.  That is
also the busiest time for the active participants of the IETF and it really
mitigates the chance of getting all the LC comments and reviews.
I realize that most LCs on WG documents are only 2-week LCs, but, if the
time chosen for the LC is around the IETF time, I think the chairs should
allow more time (say, 4 weeks instead of 2).  I wish we make that
recommended practice so that we don't run into this around every IETF
timeframe.  I've seen some WGs go with 4-week LCs, especially during the
summer when many European participants may be on vacation and that seems
reasonable to me.  I think we need to apply that philosophy for LCs around
the IETF timeframe as well. 

Thoughts? 

Vidya