Subject: [yam] Notes (i.e., decisions taken) in WG session)

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:24:04 -0800

Hi Ned,
At 10:34 21-11-2009, Ned Freed wrote:
>Pete, while I appreciate the information about the WG session, 
>especially since
>AFAIK neither a session summary nor any minutes have been posted to 
>the list, I
>think we need to follow proper proceure here.

I should have posted the minutes as I was the scribe for that 
session.  I need some time to go through the rough notes I posted [1] 
and write a session summary.

>A hum was taken at a F2F on a matter of fundamental importance to the group:
>What to do next. My understanding of proper procedure is that the question
>should then be taken to the list for further discussion and in order to check
>and see if the consensus on the list is the same as in the room. (And if it
>isn't, the list wins.)

There was a multi-vote hum during the IETF76 YAM WG session.  The 
four questions asked were:

  1. Who wants to disband?

  2. Who wants to flat out switch to one-step process whether we do a
     recharter or skip the recharter?

  3. Who wants to follow Alexey's original suggestion of doing a comparison
     step with two documents, one that does a one-step process and the
     following does a two-step process?

  4. Who wants to continue with the two step process for the next couple of
     documents?

The WG Chair (Tony) asked for a raise of hands on:

  1. Doing RFC 5322 only.

  2. Doing RFC 5321 only.

  3. Doing both RFC 5321 and RFC 5322.

Pete posted [2] a note about the above.  I'll ask the WG Chairs about 
the consensus call.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
YAM WG Secretary

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00205.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00159.html

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:58:32 -0800

Hi Ned,
At 10:34 21-11-2009, Ned Freed wrote:
>My main concern here is that I've seen zero attention paid to the point I
>raised, which is quite simply that the one thing the 1652bis experiment showed
>is that sufficient technical review of the material isn't occurring. More
>specifically, at least two significant technical errors were present in the
>1652bis proposal and neither the WG nor the IESG caught them. Given how small
>and straightforward 1652bis is, this is NOT a good sign.

I guess that we assumed that 1652bis was too simple and we got 
sidetracked by other questions.  It is the technical review and not 
the process experiment that is the most important.

>Now, I personally don't give a crap if the WG decides on a one, two, or twenty
>step process as long as it appears to be doable in a reasonable time frame. I
>also don't care about document processing order. What I do care 
>about is fixing
>up the various small issues that inevitably creep in over time and getting
>things advanced on the standards track. And I remain to be convinced that the
>current path we have tentatively selected intersects with either of those
>goals.

You emphasized two points in the above paragraph, doing the work in a 
reasonable time frame and fixing the various small issues.  And 
that's what could have been done by advancing a document on the 
standards track.  But that requires the participation of the people 
in this Working Group.  There is an interesting "rule" in another 
Working Group which is to have at least five people volunteering to 
review a draft.

Regards,
-sm