Subject: [yam] Proposed changes to review template

From: Chris Newman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:53:38 -0700

Based on the IESG evaluation record of 
draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-00, I believe the questions we 
asked the IESG were too terse and thus were not understood by the IESG and 
did not accomplish our charter's stated goal for the pre-review.

I propose the latter two questions be expanded for future templates as 
follows:

>   o  Does the IESG believe any other proposed changes are necessary to
>      satisfy IESG requirements to advance to Full Standard?

 o  Excluding the previous proposed changes and expected IESG support for 
technically substantive IETF last call feedback, does the IESG believe any 
additional changes are critical to advance this document from draft to full 
standard?  If so, please provide sufficient information so the WG can 
address these issues prior to IETF last call or determine the document is 
inappropriate for the YAM WG to process at this time.

>   o  Does the IESG consider the downward references acceptable for a
>      Full Standard?

 o  Does the IESG consider the downward references acceptable for a full 
standard?  If not, please cite which specific downward reference or 
references are problematic and why so the WG can address these issues prior 
to IETF last call or determine the document is inappropriate for the YAM WG 
to process at this time.

		- Chris

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:26:56 -0800

Hi Chris,

This is a comment as an individual.

At 14:53 02-11-2009, Chris Newman wrote:
>draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-00, I believe the questions 
>we asked the IESG were too terse and thus were not understood by the 
>IESG and did not accomplish our charter's stated goal for the pre-review.

If the WG want to accomplish the charter's stated goal, it will have 
to document the process experiment for the IESG to understand how it 
is going to work.  And the IESG has to agree to it.  We lose process 
agility when we get into all the details.

>I propose the latter two questions be expanded for future templates 
>as follows:

In theory, your proposal should help to get the work done.  It may 
have undesired effects which I won't get into.  Based on publicly 
available information, I doubt that the proposal would work as 
intended in practice.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:17:38 -0800

Chris Newman wrote:
> asked the IESG were too terse and thus were not understood by the IESG 
> and did not accomplish our charter's stated goal for the pre-review.
> 
> 

Chris,

We asked some reasonable questions of the IESG.  We've had two iterations 
attempting to get answers.  What we have received back is:

    1.  No effort to answer those questions

    2.  An affirmative statement that the IESG does not want to make agreements 
through these pore-evaluations, now, that will constrain its actions when the 
revised specifications are put forward

    3.  Direction that we start over with a different document

We have absolutely no indication that any revision to our questions or 
methodology will produce differential results.

By my reading of "experimental results", we have obtained more than enough data 
to assess this experiment.

"Pre-evaluation" has not worked.

We should either simply do the direct spec revision to the document the IESG 
requested or we should shut down.

If anyone disagrees with the facts or their implications that I've listed, 
please carefully explain my errors.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net