Subject: Tools request - "Waiting for implementation" as WG draft status

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 10:36:49 -0500

Hi all,

In the Routing Area, it can be desirable to wait for multiple interoperable
implementations before progressing a draft to be an RFC.  This is required
in IDR.

Unfortunately, the lack of a WGLC until implementations are done causes two
issues.  First, it is harder to get the level of focused review and
scrutiny that a WGLC generates.  Second, it is only clear what the status
of a draft is to those "in the know" who are active in the group and were
paying attention.

I would like to see a new state for a draft called "Waiting for
Implementation".  I think this state could be entered from "WGLC Passed".
>From "Waiting for Implementation", the draft could be minorly updated just
as for IETF Last Call comments or returned to the WG if a serious technical
issue was found.

>From chatting with the IDR chairs, this would be helpful to them.

Any thoughts?
Alia

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 15:45:51 +0000

> as for IETF Last Call comments or returned to the WG if a serious technical

Can you use "Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead", with a tag of "Other --
see Comment Log"?

Barry

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 16:14:13 +0000

On 3/6/14, 3:36 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> In the Routing Area, it can be desirable to wait for multiple 
> interoperable implementations before progressing a draft to be an 
> RFC.  This is required in IDR.
>
> Unfortunately, the lack of a WGLC until implementations are done 
> causes two issues.  First, it is harder to get the level of focused 
> review and scrutiny that a WGLC generates.  Second, it is only clear 
> what the status of a draft is to those "in the know" who are active in 
> the group and were paying attention.
>
> Implementation".  I think this state could be entered from "WGLC 
> Passed".  From "Waiting for Implementation", the draft could be 
> minorly updated just as for IETF Last Call comments or returned to the 
> WG if a serious technical issue was found.
>
One thing everyone should remember about the working group states is 
that you can choose which ones your working group uses.

If this is added (and I'm happy for it to be added), you will not have 
to use it - in fact, you would have to edit your working group states
to turn it on before you would see it.

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 11:10:05 -0500

Barry: 

I will try coding this flag, and see if it is visible easily to the user,
and respond further. 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 10:46 AM
To: Alia Atlas
Cc: Henrik Levkowetz; Working Group Chairs; Adrian Farrel; Susan Hares;
Robert Sparks
Subject: Re: Tools request - "Waiting for implementation" as WG draft status

> From "Waiting for Implementation", the draft could be minorly updated 
> just as for IETF Last Call comments or returned to the WG if a serious 
> technical issue was found.

Can you use "Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead", with a tag of "Other -- see
Comment Log"?

Barry

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 11:18:52 -0500

Robert:

If it gets added, IDR will use it immediately and give you feedback.  We
have 5+ drafts that need this flag right now. 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Sparks [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 11:14 AM
To: Alia Atlas; Henrik Levkowetz; [email-masked]
Cc: Adrian Farrel; John G. Scudder; Susan Hares
Subject: Re: Tools request - "Waiting for implementation" as WG draft status

On 3/6/14, 3:36 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
> interoperable implementations before progressing a draft to be an RFC.  
> This is required in IDR.
>
One thing everyone should remember about the working group states is that
you can choose which ones your working group uses.

If this is added (and I'm happy for it to be added), you will not have to
use it - in fact, you would have to edit your working group states to turn
it on before you would see it.

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 19:10:53 +0100

>>From chatting with the IDR chairs, this would be helpful to them.

I'm fine with adding this state to those you can choose to use.

Best regards,

	Henrik

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 13:20:01 -0500

Barry: 

I tried this, but the normal WG person cannot see the Other tag information
on the tools page or the 

See the:  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-as-migration/

If I have a state that Alia Asked for, the WG members can see it - then we
hope they will review early.

Sue 

-----Original Message-----

Barry