Subject: [yam] Clarification about changes

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 16:21:33 -0700

There seems to be a misconception about changes to documents being 
worked on.  I hope that the following clarifies the matter.

The documents being worked on have been reviewed.  You can find the 
list of documents and the name of the reviewer at 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/yam/trac/wiki

The review will be posted as an Internet-Draft and a Working Group 
Last-Call (WGLC) will be issued.  If a new version of the document is 
required, the new version will be posted as an Internet-Draft.  There 
will be a WGLC for the I-D.  WG participants will have the 
opportunity to bring up any issue or suggest changes.

It is not necessary to submit errata for the documents being worked 
on as there is an existing WG to discuss about the changes.  If any 
of the issues you reported is omitted, please bring it to my attention.

If you have any questions about how the work will be done, please 
post a message to the mailing list.  You may also email me or the WG Chairs.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
YAM WG Secretary

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 11:11:44 +0100

S Moonesamy wrote:

> It is not necessary to submit errata for the documents being worked on 
> as there is an existing WG to discuss about the changes.  If any of 
> the issues you reported is omitted, please bring it to my attention.

With my participant's hat on: I am wondering if we should use trac on 
tools.ietf.org for tracking issues. This is a much better tool then 
Errata for this kind of stuff.

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:44:28 +0100

S Moonesamy wrote:

> Hi Alexey,
> At 03:11 09-09-2009, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>
> I will be using trac on tools.ietf.org for issue tracking.  I did not 
> use it for the first document requesting IESG feedback as there were 
> only three issues.

This is fine. trac is not the only (and not the best) tracking tool, but 
I know it worked well in other WGs.

> The WG "procedure" for processing the documents (i.e. how the work is 
> done in practice and not what procedures should be followed) has not 
> been tested yet.  The WG (including me) will have a better idea about 
> the details once we have gone through a few documents.  I understand 
> that the WG wants to discuss about 5321 and the other documents.  It 
> is going to be complicated if there are simultaneous discussions about 
> all the documents as it's not only a matter of tracking issues; it 
> also requires understanding the different arguments about each issue.
>
> Errata is not for issue tracking.  It is generally for fixing "bugs" 
> in the specification.  For example, switching to ABNF might not be an 
> appropriate erratum.  There is a channel (this WG) for suggesting 
> changes.

Agreed.

> "The working group does not intend to revise the actual protocols in 
> any way and will avoid document changes that might even accidentally 
> introduce protocol changes, destabilize a protocol, or introduce 
> semantic or syntactic changes."

It might still be worth logging issues, even if we decide not to reopen 
some documents.

> It is up to the YAM WG to decide what changes are appropriate.  All 
> changes will be submitted to the WG for consideration.

Regards,
Alexey

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 10:24:28 -0700

Hi Alexey,
At 03:11 09-09-2009, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>With my participant's hat on: I am wondering if we should use trac 
>on tools.ietf.org for tracking issues. This is a much better tool 
>then Errata for this kind of stuff.

The WG "procedure" for processing the documents (i.e. how the work is 
done in practice and not what procedures should be followed) has not 
been tested yet.  The WG (including me) will have a better idea about 
the details once we have gone through a few documents.  I understand 
that the WG wants to discuss about 5321 and the other documents.  It 
is going to be complicated if there are simultaneous discussions 
about all the documents as it's not only a matter of tracking issues; 
it also requires understanding the different arguments about each issue.

Errata is not for issue tracking.  It is generally for fixing "bugs" 
in the specification.  For example, switching to ABNF might not be an 
appropriate erratum.  There is a channel (this WG) for suggesting changes.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
YAM WG Secretary

---

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:11:26 +0200

>> semantic or syntactic changes."

Although I agree to "If it isn't broken, don't fix it" attitudes, a 
strict interpretation of the above snippet seems overly restrictive.

> It might still be worth logging issues, even if we decide not to reopen 

Yes, but... would it then make sense to publish, say, an informational 
RFC describing what changes we would have liked to carry out on a 
given document but we didn't because we feared to accidentally 
destabilize the relevant protocol?

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 12:05:37 -0700

At 10:44 09-09-2009, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>It might still be worth logging issues, even if we decide not to 
>reopen some documents.

I will be logging all the issues including those for documents that 
are not reopened.  An issue is any change that is proposed.  It does 
not require the approval of the reviser, author, editor or the WG.

>strict interpretation of the above snippet seems overly restrictive.

It's up to the WG to reach consensus.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
YAM WG Secretary

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:08:01 -0400

>> Although I agree to "If it isn't broken, don't fix it" attitudes, a strict
>> interpretation of the above snippet seems overly restrictive.
>

And, I will point out, that it's already the consensus of the working
group, as documented in the charter, that we NOT make changes to the
documents unless there are STRONG reasons to -- unless something
really IS broken.

Barry