From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jan 13 16:03:21 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ExW4v-0001IW-AO; Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:03:21 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ExW4t-0001ID-HL for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:03:19 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08610 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:01:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from imr2.ericy.com ([198.24.6.3]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ExWCC-0003v5-Kx for techspec@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:10:57 -0500 Received: from eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se (eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.133.38]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k0DL8DUQ008531 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:08:13 -0600 Received: by eamrcnt760 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:03:05 -0600 Message-ID: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003801AFCA92@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> From: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" To: techspec@ietf.org Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:02:55 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 6d62ab47271805379d7172ee693a45db Subject: [Techspec] New version of mankin-pub-req available X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org The -02 version of the technical publication requirements is available at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mankin-pub-req-02.txt. It is an extensive rewrite of the -01 version with an eye to taking a more systematic approach. The new version is basically a laundry list of requirements (both current and potential) against a technical publisher. The goal is to provide a framework in which we can decide what the IETF wants a technical publisher to do and what level of performance we want to see. Comments eagerly awaited. Stephen Hayes _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 17 04:34:22 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EynEM-00056Q-DF; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 04:34:22 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EynEK-00052J-FQ for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 04:34:20 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA29872 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 04:32:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com ([192.11.222.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EynMQ-0006Ku-Ik for techspec@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 04:42:42 -0500 Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k0H9YCEm025307; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 03:34:12 -0600 (CST) Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:34:10 +0100 Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15509154B75@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" To: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" Subject: New Requirment: Source Code control [was [Techspec] New version o f mankin-pub-req available] Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:34:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081 Cc: techspec@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org I think it was brought up on the techspec mailing list that we do have a: Potential requirement: We need a source code control system into which the source material for an IETF spec is created/mainatained. The IETF Technical Publisher must make any changes to the source material and ensure that an up to date source is checked into the source code control system when an RFC is published. We can discuss which forms of source files would need to be handled. But one way or another I think we really need to get an up to date source file for all RFCs, so that future fixes/changes/additions/ extensions can easily be made, either by the same author/editor or by new WG authors/editors. Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: techspec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:techspec-bounces@ietf.org]On > Behalf Of Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS) > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 22:03 > To: techspec@ietf.org > Subject: [Techspec] New version of mankin-pub-req available > > > The -02 version of the technical publication requirements is > available at > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mankin-pub-req-02.tx > t. It is an extensive rewrite of the -01 version with an eye > to taking a more systematic approach. The new version is > basically a laundry list of requirements (both current and > potential) against a technical publisher. The goal is to > provide a framework in which we can decide what the IETF > wants a technical publisher to do and what level of > performance we want to see. > > Comments eagerly awaited. > > Stephen Hayes > > _______________________________________________ > Techspec mailing list > Techspec@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec > _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 17 04:34:23 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EynEN-00059p-Ls; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 04:34:23 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EynEL-00054A-CE for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 04:34:21 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA29879 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 04:32:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com ([192.11.222.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EynMQ-0006Ky-Id for techspec@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 04:42:43 -0500 Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k0H9Y96J025261; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 03:34:09 -0600 (CST) Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:34:07 +0100 Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15509154B74@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" To: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" , techspec@ietf.org Subject: Individual submissions [was: [Techspec] New version of mankin-pu b-req available] Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:34:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1 Cc: X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org I think we have a Potential requirement that individual submissions be separate from IETF submitted documents and that those individual submissions do not belong in the "IETF Technical Publication process" Or to word it positive: Potential requirement: Only IETF submitted documents (i.e. through the IESG, IAB or IRTF) are part of the IETF Publication Process Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: techspec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:techspec-bounces@ietf.org]On > Behalf Of Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS) > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 22:03 > To: techspec@ietf.org > Subject: [Techspec] New version of mankin-pub-req available > > > The -02 version of the technical publication requirements is > available at > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mankin-pub-req-02.tx > t. It is an extensive rewrite of the -01 version with an eye > to taking a more systematic approach. The new version is > basically a laundry list of requirements (both current and > potential) against a technical publisher. The goal is to > provide a framework in which we can decide what the IETF > wants a technical publisher to do and what level of > performance we want to see. > > Comments eagerly awaited. > > Stephen Hayes > > _______________________________________________ > Techspec mailing list > Techspec@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec > _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 17 04:34:24 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EynEN-0005AQ-Tr; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 04:34:23 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EynEL-00054B-DU for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 04:34:21 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA29880 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 04:32:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com ([192.11.222.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EynMQ-0006Kz-IY for techspec@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 04:42:43 -0500 Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k0H9Y9B3025259; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 03:34:09 -0600 (CST) Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:34:07 +0100 Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15509154B73@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" To: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" , techspec@ietf.org Subject: rquirement: check fixes to errata [ was: [Techspec] New version o f mankin-pub-req available] Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:34:07 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Cc: X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Sect 3.15 - Do we want to add a potential requirement that the published checks if errata have been fixed when a new RFC obsoletes and older one (with errata)? Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: techspec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:techspec-bounces@ietf.org]On > Behalf Of Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS) > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 22:03 > To: techspec@ietf.org > Subject: [Techspec] New version of mankin-pub-req available > > > The -02 version of the technical publication requirements is > available at > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mankin-pub-req-02.tx t. It is an extensive rewrite of the -01 version with an eye to taking a more systematic approach. The new version is basically a laundry list of requirements (both current and potential) against a technical publisher. The goal is to provide a framework in which we can decide what the IETF wants a technical publisher to do and what level of performance we want to see. Comments eagerly awaited. Stephen Hayes _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 17 06:11:16 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Eyok7-0003k8-MY; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 06:11:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Eyok6-0003jq-EY for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 06:11:14 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA06497 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 06:09:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com ([192.11.222.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EyosC-0001rM-Kr for techspec@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 06:19:37 -0500 Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k0HBAvc3016637; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 05:10:57 -0600 (CST) Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:10:55 +0100 Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15509154C14@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" To: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" , techspec@ietf.org Subject: New reuirement: Must publish within 2 months after approval [ was : [Techspec] New version o f mankin-pub-req available] Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:10:56 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b431ad66d60be2d47c7bfeb879db82c Cc: X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org I am really surprised to not see some sort of requirement that we get a tech spec published within a reasonable amount of time. SO I would say: Potential Requirement: After IESG approval of a document, the IETF Technical Publisher must publish the document within 2 months (unless blocking issues come up during that period) Blocking issues would be non-response on AUTH48 ?? Or a normatibve reference not being available. or some such, The idea is to ensure that we get a reasonable processing speed after document approval. I personally would like 1 month much better, but am OK with 2 months. Any longer period seems unacceptable to me. Bert > > -----Original Message----- > > From: techspec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:techspec-bounces@ietf.org]On > > Behalf Of Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS) > > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 22:03 > > To: techspec@ietf.org > > Subject: [Techspec] New version of mankin-pub-req available > > > > > > The -02 version of the technical publication requirements is > > available at > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mankin-pub-req-02.tx > t. It is an extensive rewrite of the -01 version with an eye > to taking a more systematic approach. The new version is > basically a laundry list of requirements (both current and > potential) against a technical publisher. The goal is to > provide a framework in which we can decide what the IETF > wants a technical publisher to do and what level of > performance we want to see. > > Comments eagerly awaited. > > Stephen Hayes > > _______________________________________________ > Techspec mailing list > Techspec@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec > > _______________________________________________ > Techspec mailing list > Techspec@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec > _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 17 09:07:49 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EyrUy-0003eg-Ud; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 09:07:48 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EyrUx-0003eV-Ub for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 09:07:48 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA18285 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 09:06:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.145]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Eyrd2-0001n3-Oz for techspec@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 09:16:12 -0500 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e5.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k0HE7UfT024742 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 09:07:30 -0500 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VERS6.8) with ESMTP id k0HE7UlI122164 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 09:07:30 -0500 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k0HE7TAj025554 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 09:07:30 -0500 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-65-222-77.mts.ibm.com [9.65.222.77]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k0HE7DvN023813; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 09:07:24 -0500 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.12.5) with ESMTP id k0HE6sWp019583; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 09:06:58 -0500 Message-Id: <200601171406.k0HE6sWp019583@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" Subject: Re: New reuirement: Must publish within 2 months after approval [ was : [Techspec] New version o f mankin-pub-req available] In-Reply-To: Message from "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" of "Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:10:56 +0100." <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15509154C14@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 09:06:54 -0500 From: Thomas Narten X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 50a516d93fd399dc60588708fd9a3002 Cc: techspec@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org > I am really surprised to not see some sort of requirement that > we get a tech spec published within a reasonable amount of time. > SO I would say: > Potential Requirement: After IESG approval of a document, > the IETF Technical Publisher must publish the document within > 2 months (unless blocking issues come up during that period) I agree. And to be clear, I'd want the time frames to be something like: SHOULD be published within 4 weeks, MUST be published within 8. > Blocking issues would be non-response on AUTH48 ?? Yes. > Or a normatibve reference not being available. > or some such, Actually, no. This is probably getting beyond techspec, but over the years I have become increasingly uncomfortable with documents that are approved (i.e., in the RFC editor queue) but that are blocked on normative references. Some reasons include: - by definition, a document isn't complete without its normative dependences. One cannot properly evaluate it without its dependencies also being available for review. Indeed, in some cases, text changes are needed in a document if one of its normative dependencies changes. - documents in the publication queue that are blocked tend to get forgotten (by the WGs), reducing the pressure on getting the normative dependencies completed. (Indeed, we want the exact opposite!) - I think we'd be better served having the equivalent of a new ID tracker state called something like "approved, but blocked on normative references", so that the document is clearly not in the publication queue (yet). Part of the reason for the above is to make it more clear that once a document is in the publication queue, "blocking issues" should really be rare exceptions. Thomas _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 17 11:11:00 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EytQC-0002Gz-OS; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:11:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EytQ9-0002Gl-G3 for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:10:59 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA27173 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:09:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from imr2.ericy.com ([198.24.6.3]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EytYI-0005pk-UJ for techspec@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:19:23 -0500 Received: from eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se (eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.133.38]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k0HGG6N2010935; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:16:06 -0600 Received: by eamrcnt760 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:10:47 -0600 Message-ID: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003801AFCF2E@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> From: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" To: Thomas Narten , "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:10:32 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 1a1bf7677bfe77d8af1ebe0e91045c5b Cc: techspec@ietf.org Subject: [Techspec] RE: New reuirement: Must publish within 2 months after approval X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Comments below. Stephen > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Narten [mailto:narten@us.ibm.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 8:07 AM > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > Cc: Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS); techspec@ietf.org > Subject: Re: New reuirement: Must publish within 2 months > after approval > [ was : [Techspec] New version o f mankin-pub-req available] > > > > I am really surprised to not see some sort of requirement that > > we get a tech spec published within a reasonable amount of time. > > > SO I would say: > > > Potential Requirement: After IESG approval of a document, > > the IETF Technical Publisher must publish the document within > > 2 months (unless blocking issues come up during that period) > > I agree. And to be clear, I'd want the time frames to be something > like: > > SHOULD be published within 4 weeks, MUST be published within 8. > > > Blocking issues would be non-response on AUTH48 ?? There is currently a statistical requirement in section 4.1 o Potential Req-TIMEFRAMES-1 - The IETF technical publisher should have an goal of 90% of documents published within x weeks of approval. Documents held up due to references or due to a protocol action should be excluded from this statistic. Where the x was intended to be filled in after discussion. It could be modified as: Potential Req-TIMEFRAMES-1 - The IETF technical publisher should have an goal of 90% of documents published within 4 weeks of approval and all of the documents published within 8 weeks. Documents held up due to references or due to a protocol action should be excluded from this statistic. There are lots of ways to document a performance goal (avg, + 95% done by goal), tiered percentage goals. They all work better than a "should". > > Yes. > > > Or a normatibve reference not being available. > > or some such, > > Actually, no. > > This is probably getting beyond techspec, but over the years I have > become increasingly uncomfortable with documents that are approved > (i.e., in the RFC editor queue) but that are blocked on normative > references. Some reasons include: > > - by definition, a document isn't complete without its normative > dependences. One cannot properly evaluate it without its > dependencies also being available for review. Indeed, in some > cases, text changes are needed in a document if one of its > normative dependencies changes. > > - documents in the publication queue that are blocked tend to get > forgotten (by the WGs), reducing the pressure on getting the > normative dependencies completed. (Indeed, we want the exact > opposite!) > > - I think we'd be better served having the equivalent of a new ID > tracker state called something like "approved, but blocked on > normative references", so that the document is clearly not in the > publication queue (yet). > > Part of the reason for the above is to make it more clear that once a > document is in the publication queue, "blocking issues" should really > be rare exceptions. > > Thomas > I don't think we should penalize the technical publisher if the necessary references are not available. However I agree that we need a way of making the blocking points visible. The following requirements were taken from section 3.11. Do they address your concerns? o Current Req-STATUSTRK-1 - The IETF technical publisher should provide state information for each document in the publication process. o Potential Req-STATUSTRK-2 - The IETF technical publisher should integrate its state information with the IETF tools to provide end-to-end status tracking of documents. IETF documents should be able to move seamlessly from the IETF tracking system into the technical publication tracking system. o Potential Req-STATUSTRK-3 - The IETF technical publisher should provide external visibility of not only the fact that a document is in an extended waiting period, but also the token-holder and circumstances of the wait. _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 17 11:34:55 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EytnL-0000Ql-RU; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:34:55 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EytnK-0000QP-F9 for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:34:54 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA28885 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:33:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EytvT-0006Zt-7B for techspec@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:43:20 -0500 Received: from [10.20.30.249] (dsl2-63-249-108-169.cruzio.com [63.249.108.169]) (authenticated bits=0) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id k0HGYjFI024186 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:34:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200601171406.k0HE6sWp019583@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> References: <200601171406.k0HE6sWp019583@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:34:43 -0800 To: techspec@ietf.org From: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17 Subject: [Techspec] Possible requirement: all normative references must be ready before IESG evaluation X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org At 9:06 AM -0500 1/17/06, Thomas Narten wrote: >This is probably getting beyond techspec, but over the years I have >become increasingly uncomfortable with documents that are approved >(i.e., in the RFC editor queue) but that are blocked on normative >references. Some reasons include: > > - by definition, a document isn't complete without its normative > dependences. One cannot properly evaluate it without its > dependencies also being available for review. Indeed, in some > cases, text changes are needed in a document if one of its > normative dependencies changes. > > - documents in the publication queue that are blocked tend to get > forgotten (by the WGs), reducing the pressure on getting the > normative dependencies completed. (Indeed, we want the exact > opposite!) > > - I think we'd be better served having the equivalent of a new ID > tracker state called something like "approved, but blocked on > normative references", so that the document is clearly not in the > publication queue (yet). Note that the first and third don't fully agree with each other. If we believe both of them (and I certainly do), the ID tracker state should prevent the IESG from evaluating the document. That is, there would be a pre-IESG-evaluation queue. Every document to be evaluated by the IESG goes into that queue, and leaves the queue when every normative reference is ready (which might be immediately). There are a number of IESG folks on this list: does that sound reasonable? Or are there good reasons to evaluate documents before all their normative references are ready? --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 17 18:28:47 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Ez0Fr-0004bD-0f; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 18:28:47 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Ez0Fo-0004b8-UR for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 18:28:44 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05068 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 18:27:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from imr2.ericy.com ([198.24.6.3]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ez0O1-0005Sy-Ke for techspec@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 18:37:14 -0500 Received: from eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se (eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.133.38]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k0HNXdDZ030139 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:33:39 -0600 Received: by eamrcnt760 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:28:19 -0600 Message-ID: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003801AFD091@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> From: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" To: techspec@ietf.org Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:28:09 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009 Subject: [Techspec] New version of draft-mankin-pub-req X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Version 03 of draft-mankin-pub-req is now available at: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mankin-pub-req-03.txt It is the same contents as the -02 version except that the formatting has been cleaned up to remove all the too-long lines. Stephen Hayes _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 18 05:52:42 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzAvi-0007oI-T0; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 05:52:42 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzAvi-0007oD-2L for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 05:52:42 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA27645 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 05:51:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([158.38.152.233]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EzB3y-0003qj-NN for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 06:01:18 -0500 Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ACC62596EF; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 11:51:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 26787-04; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 11:51:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.1.160] (163.80-203-220.nextgentel.com [80.203.220.163]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id C76FB2596E3; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 11:51:17 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 11:52:22 +0100 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand To: Paul Hoffman , techspec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Techspec] Possible requirement: all normative references must be ready before IESG evaluation Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <200601171406.k0HE6sWp019583@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.6 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org --On tirsdag, januar 17, 2006 08:34:43 -0800 Paul Hoffman wrote: > There are a number of IESG folks on this list: does that sound > reasonable? Or are there good reasons to evaluate documents before all > their normative references are ready? Yes; when the normative reference is to a document in the hands of a dependable but slow-moving group, and the document under discussion is in the hands of a group where the WG chair is begging us to approve the document and shut it down before the proponents completely change their minds about what they want Once Again..... or when the IESG all has the document and its issues clearly in mind, and delaying it 6 months would cause it to be swapped out of their active memory... I think we're reasonably well served with marking the "ref wait" state as "waiting on the IETF to do something" rather than "waiting for the publisher to do something", and not changing where it occurs in the sequence. Harald _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 18 06:22:39 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzBOh-00060e-2I; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 06:22:39 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzBOd-0005zo-4A for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 06:22:37 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA29847 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 06:21:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtagate4.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.137]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EzBWw-0004kO-M8 for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 06:31:11 -0500 Received: from d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.38.185]) by mtagate4.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k0IBLvfw152186 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 11:21:58 GMT Received: from d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.213]) by d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VERS6.8) with ESMTP id k0IBLuVS176698 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 11:21:57 GMT Received: from d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k0IBLunw017022 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 11:21:56 GMT Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k0IBLuZM017018; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 11:21:56 GMT Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-145-133-160.de.ibm.com [9.145.133.160]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA67638; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:21:55 +0100 Message-ID: <43CE24D3.6000701@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:21:55 +0100 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" Subject: Re: [Techspec] RE: New reuirement: Must publish within 2 months after approval References: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003801AFCF2E@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003801AFCF2E@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8fbbaa16f9fd29df280814cb95ae2290 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: techspec@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS) wrote: > Comments below. > > Stephen > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Thomas Narten [mailto:narten@us.ibm.com] >>Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 8:07 AM >>To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) >>Cc: Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS); techspec@ietf.org >>Subject: Re: New reuirement: Must publish within 2 months >>after approval >>[ was : [Techspec] New version o f mankin-pub-req available] >> >> >> >>>I am really surprised to not see some sort of requirement that >>>we get a tech spec published within a reasonable amount of time. >> >>>SO I would say: >> >>> Potential Requirement: After IESG approval of a document, >>> the IETF Technical Publisher must publish the document within >>> 2 months (unless blocking issues come up during that period) >> >>I agree. And to be clear, I'd want the time frames to be something >>like: >> >> SHOULD be published within 4 weeks, MUST be published within 8. >> >> >>>Blocking issues would be non-response on AUTH48 ?? > > > There is currently a statistical requirement in section 4.1 In the real world of variable workloads, it can only be statistical. Anything else is unrealistic. > > o Potential Req-TIMEFRAMES-1 - The IETF technical publisher should > have an goal of 90% of documents published within x weeks of > approval. Documents held up due to references or due to a > protocol action should be excluded from this statistic. > > Where the x was intended to be filled in after discussion. It could be modified as: > > Potential Req-TIMEFRAMES-1 - The IETF technical publisher should > have an goal of 90% of documents published within 4 weeks of > approval and all of the documents published within 8 weeks. > Documents held up due to references or due to a > protocol action should be excluded from this statistic. I don't think that can be done except in the context of a bidding process. There will be a direct tradeoff between the contract price and this goal, and so it's not something that can be set in concrete except in the final contract. Also, because of the two month timeout in the RFC 2026 appeal process, it turns out that our standards process actually implies that an RFC MUST NOT be published until two months after approval. Brian > > There are lots of ways to document a performance goal > (avg, + 95% done by goal), tiered percentage goals. They all work better > than a "should". > > >>Yes. >> >> >>>Or a normatibve reference not being available. >>>or some such, >> >>Actually, no. >> >>This is probably getting beyond techspec, but over the years I have >>become increasingly uncomfortable with documents that are approved >>(i.e., in the RFC editor queue) but that are blocked on normative >>references. Some reasons include: >> >> - by definition, a document isn't complete without its normative >> dependences. One cannot properly evaluate it without its >> dependencies also being available for review. Indeed, in some >> cases, text changes are needed in a document if one of its >> normative dependencies changes. >> >> - documents in the publication queue that are blocked tend to get >> forgotten (by the WGs), reducing the pressure on getting the >> normative dependencies completed. (Indeed, we want the exact >> opposite!) >> >> - I think we'd be better served having the equivalent of a new ID >> tracker state called something like "approved, but blocked on >> normative references", so that the document is clearly not in the >> publication queue (yet). >> >>Part of the reason for the above is to make it more clear that once a >>document is in the publication queue, "blocking issues" should really >>be rare exceptions. >> >>Thomas >> > > I don't think we should penalize the technical publisher if the > necessary references are not available. However I agree that we need a > way of making the blocking points visible. The following requirements were > taken from section 3.11. Do they address your concerns? > > o Current Req-STATUSTRK-1 - The IETF technical publisher should > provide state information for each document in the publication > process. > > o Potential Req-STATUSTRK-2 - The IETF technical publisher should > integrate its state information with the IETF tools to provide > end-to-end status tracking of documents. IETF documents should be > able to move seamlessly from the IETF tracking system into the > technical publication tracking system. > > o Potential Req-STATUSTRK-3 - The IETF technical publisher should > provide external visibility of not only the fact that a document > is in an extended waiting period, but also the token-holder and > circumstances of the wait. > > _______________________________________________ > Techspec mailing list > Techspec@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec > _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 18 06:33:40 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzBZL-0000DO-Vr; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 06:33:39 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzBZK-0000DJ-CP for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 06:33:38 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA00715 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 06:32:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtagate4.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.137]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EzBhb-00057U-0P for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 06:42:12 -0500 Received: from d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.38.185]) by mtagate4.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k0IBWbfw181140 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 11:32:38 GMT Received: from d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.216]) by d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VERS6.8) with ESMTP id k0IBVMVS070060 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 11:31:22 GMT Received: from d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k0IBVLdf031728 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 11:31:21 GMT Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k0IBVLZN031708; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 11:31:21 GMT Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-145-133-160.de.ibm.com [9.145.133.160]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA50194; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:31:20 +0100 Message-ID: <43CE2707.105@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:31:19 +0100 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Hoffman Subject: Re: [Techspec] Possible requirement: all normative references must be ready before IESG evaluation References: <200601171406.k0HE6sWp019583@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: techspec@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Paul Hoffman wrote: > At 9:06 AM -0500 1/17/06, Thomas Narten wrote: > >> This is probably getting beyond techspec, but over the years I have >> become increasingly uncomfortable with documents that are approved >> (i.e., in the RFC editor queue) but that are blocked on normative >> references. Some reasons include: >> >> - by definition, a document isn't complete without its normative >> dependences. One cannot properly evaluate it without its >> dependencies also being available for review. Indeed, in some >> cases, text changes are needed in a document if one of its >> normative dependencies changes. >> >> - documents in the publication queue that are blocked tend to get >> forgotten (by the WGs), reducing the pressure on getting the >> normative dependencies completed. (Indeed, we want the exact >> opposite!) >> >> - I think we'd be better served having the equivalent of a new ID >> tracker state called something like "approved, but blocked on >> normative references", so that the document is clearly not in the >> publication queue (yet). Actually, this state does exist in the RFC Editor queue now, under the name of MISSREF. There's been some debate whether it's better to have it where it is (head of line) or at the tail of the edit queue, but there it is. (Also see Potential Req-STATUSTRK-2.) > Note that the first and third don't fully agree with each other. If we > believe both of them (and I certainly do), the ID tracker state should > prevent the IESG from evaluating the document. That is, there would be a > pre-IESG-evaluation queue. Every document to be evaluated by the IESG > goes into that queue, and leaves the queue when every normative > reference is ready (which might be immediately). > > There are a number of IESG folks on this list: does that sound > reasonable? Or are there good reasons to evaluate documents before all > their normative references are ready? I think that would remove potential parallelism and would therefore be a Bad Thing. It's perfectly reasonable to evaluate a draft knowing that some of its normative dependencies are still being refined; generally speaking an AD won't bring a draft forward until the dependencies are getting ready to be ready. Brian _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 18 06:35:47 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzBbP-0000R9-S7; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 06:35:47 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzBbN-0000R4-SR for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 06:35:45 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA00820 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 06:34:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com ([192.11.222.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EzBjg-0005Aa-Ok for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 06:44:22 -0500 Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k0IBZblb012587; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 05:35:38 -0600 (CST) Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:35:35 +0100 Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15509154FF0@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" To: Paul Hoffman , techspec@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Techspec] Possible requirement: all normative references mus t be ready before IESG evaluation Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:35:34 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69 Cc: X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Paul writes: > At 9:06 AM -0500 1/17/06, Thomas Narten wrote: > >This is probably getting beyond techspec, but over the years I have > >become increasingly uncomfortable with documents that are approved > >(i.e., in the RFC editor queue) but that are blocked on normative > >references. Some reasons include: > > > > - by definition, a document isn't complete without its normative > > dependences. One cannot properly evaluate it without its > > dependencies also being available for review. Indeed, in some > > cases, text changes are needed in a document if one of its > > normative dependencies changes. > > > > - documents in the publication queue that are blocked tend to get > > forgotten (by the WGs), reducing the pressure on getting the > > normative dependencies completed. (Indeed, we want the exact > > opposite!) > > > > - I think we'd be better served having the equivalent of a new ID > > tracker state called something like "approved, but blocked on > > normative references", so that the document is clearly not in the > > publication queue (yet). > > Note that the first and third don't fully agree with each other. If > we believe both of them (and I certainly do), the ID tracker state > should prevent the IESG from evaluating the document. That is, there > would be a pre-IESG-evaluation queue. Every document to be evaluated > by the IESG goes into that queue, and leaves the queue when every > normative reference is ready (which might be immediately). > > There are a number of IESG folks on this list: does that sound > reasonable? Or are there good reasons to evaluate documents before > all their normative references are ready? > Speaking as an individual: I basically agree. IIRC I have supported this in earlier discussions. However, I guess we only "move" the problem to an earlier point in the process (a better point in my view), we do not really solve the problem. It may however put some more pressure on documents authors to keep pushing and helping to complete the normative references as well. Bert _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 18 07:29:04 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzCQy-0005D2-AM; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 07:29:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzCQu-0005Cx-VD for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 07:29:03 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA05785 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 07:27:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([158.38.152.233]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EzCZD-0007Ds-Dg for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 07:37:37 -0500 Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBE732596EF; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:27:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 29116-04; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:27:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.1.160] (163.80-203-220.nextgentel.com [80.203.220.163]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 213752596DD; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:27:40 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:28:44 +0100 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand To: Brian E Carpenter , "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" Subject: Re: [Techspec] RE: New reuirement: Must publish within 2 months after approval Message-ID: <6E4B6E95D065B13C9E6C9744@svartdal.hjemme.alvestrand.no> In-Reply-To: <43CE24D3.6000701@zurich.ibm.com> References: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003801AFCF2E@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericss on.se> <43CE24D3.6000701@zurich.ibm.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.6 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 39bd8f8cbb76cae18b7e23f7cf6b2b9f Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: techspec@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org --On onsdag, januar 18, 2006 12:21:55 +0100 Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Potential Req-TIMEFRAMES-1 - The IETF technical publisher should >> have an goal of 90% of documents published within 4 weeks of >> approval and all of the documents published within 8 weeks. >> Documents held up due to references or due to a >> protocol action should be excluded from this statistic. > > I don't think that can be done except in the context of a bidding process. > There will be a direct tradeoff between the contract price and this goal, > and so it's not something that can be set in concrete except in the final > contract. > > Also, because of the two month timeout in the RFC 2026 appeal process, it > turns > out that our standards process actually implies that an RFC MUST NOT be > published > until two months after approval. I don't see that that follows - we can always declare the mis-published RFC Historical and publish a fixed one later, as we did with (for instance) the RFCs for RADIUS that came out with the wrong port numbers in them, or the SNMPv3 RFCs that turned out to have the wrong encrypted-values in the examples. I don't think the harm from a couple of dead RFCs is big enough that we need to insist on the wait. Harald _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 18 08:34:19 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzDS7-0006U4-IS; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 08:34:19 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzDS6-0006Tp-2d for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 08:34:18 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA12808 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 08:32:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtagate1.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.150]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EzDaL-0001cX-QI for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 08:42:53 -0500 Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate1.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k0IDXUOl125634 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:33:31 GMT Received: from d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.229]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VERS6.8) with ESMTP id k0IDX5Mj078204 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 14:33:05 +0100 Received: from d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k0IDX525032699 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 14:33:05 +0100 Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k0IDX4M4032681; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 14:33:05 +0100 Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-145-133-160.de.ibm.com [9.145.133.160]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA41076; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 14:33:03 +0100 Message-ID: <43CE438E.8010305@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 14:33:02 +0100 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" Subject: Re: Individual submissions [was: [Techspec] New version of mankin-pu b-req available] References: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15509154B74@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> In-Reply-To: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15509154B74@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: techspec@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Bert, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: > I think we have a Potential requirement that individual submissions > be separate from IETF submitted documents and that those individual > submissions do not belong in the "IETF Technical Publication process" > Or to word it positive: > > Potential requirement: Only IETF submitted documents (i.e. through > the IESG, IAB or IRTF) are part of the IETF Publication Process Personal comments: Since you raise it, I'd like to take a slightly different cut. Your statement isn't really a requirement, in fact. There are good reasons to have a publication process that bypasses IESG approval - it's one of the checks and balances in our system. In fact, it has its own built-in check and balance, RFC 3932. However, as the need for RFC 3932 shows, it's really illusory to pretend that it's completely separate from the IETF community and its processes. So I would suggest a new process. 1. There should be a process by which technical specifications that have not been submitted for approval by the IESG are published. 2. They may not be standards track or BCP. 3. They must be published first as I-Ds. 4. The IETF establishes an independent review board (IRB) for such documents, whose reviews shall be published. 5. If the IRB wishes to publish a draft, it must submit it to the IESG, not for approval, but for review according to the criteria in RFC 3932 (non conflict with IETF work). 6. In the event the the IESG recommends against publication and the IRB decides to publish, a note written by the IESG must be included. 7. After that the draft goes to the technical publisher just like an IESG-approved draft. Brian _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 18 08:40:39 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzDYF-0007N3-0Z; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 08:40:39 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzDYD-0007Lg-7R for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 08:40:37 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA13400 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 08:39:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.151]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EzDgV-0001tu-27 for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 08:49:12 -0500 Received: from westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.11]) by e33.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k0IDeK2O029914 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 08:40:20 -0500 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (d03av01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.167]) by westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VERS6.8) with ESMTP id k0IDchOO240468 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 06:38:43 -0700 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k0IDeJLB025580 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 06:40:20 -0700 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-48-40-136.mts.ibm.com [9.48.40.136]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k0IDeIUX025521; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 06:40:19 -0700 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.12.5) with ESMTP id k0IDeGvQ022167; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 08:40:17 -0500 Message-Id: <200601181340.k0IDeGvQ022167@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Subject: Re: [Techspec] RE: New reuirement: Must publish within 2 months after approval In-Reply-To: Message from Harald Tveit Alvestrand of "Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:28:44 +0100." <6E4B6E95D065B13C9E6C9744@svartdal.hjemme.alvestrand.no> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 08:40:16 -0500 From: Thomas Narten X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25 Cc: techspec@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org > > Also, because of the two month timeout in the RFC 2026 appeal > > process, it turns out that our standards process actually implies > > that an RFC MUST NOT be published until two months after approval. > I don't see that that follows - we can always declare the mis-published RFC > Historical and publish a fixed one later, as we did with (for instance) the > RFCs for RADIUS that came out with the wrong port numbers in them, or the > SNMPv3 RFCs that turned out to have the wrong encrypted-values in the > examples. I strongly concur. Our processes should (by default) be forward looking. We should not be adding extra (and harmful) delay to our processes in order to facilitate appeals, or those that would raise them. Let's not have the cost outweigh the benefit! Thomas _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 18 09:25:49 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzEFx-0002An-24; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 09:25:49 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzEFv-0002Ah-QB for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 09:25:47 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA17403 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 09:24:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtagate1.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.134]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EzEOB-0003bm-Ob for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 09:34:23 -0500 Received: from d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.38.185]) by mtagate1.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k0IEOtx0205950 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 14:24:56 GMT Received: from d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.228]) by d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VERS6.8) with ESMTP id k0IEOtVS144222 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 14:24:55 GMT Received: from d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k0IEOsLc008249 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 14:24:54 GMT Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k0IEOsoB008240 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 14:24:54 GMT Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-145-133-160.de.ibm.com [9.145.133.160]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA51322 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 15:24:53 +0100 Message-ID: <43CE4FB6.8050608@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 15:24:54 +0100 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: techspec@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d185fa790257f526fedfd5d01ed9c976 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Techspec] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-mankin-pub-req-03.txt X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org With my IAOC hat on, I'm delighted with this draft - lots of rather precise items that will help prepare the RFP. Now here are my *personal* comments on the text. (I could have split this into 9 separate messages but that seemed over the top.) > 3.8. Allocation of Permanent Stable Identifiers Something needs to be said about the assignment of STD numbers and STD names. I don't know if it fits here, but either it has to be specified as an action by the publisher, or this job has to be moved into the IETF process. ... > o Potential Req- PERMID-2 - The IETF technical publisher should > permit early allocation of stable identifiers for or by the IESG > to satisfy referencing requirements of external bodies. Should the two-month appeal period be mentioned here? > 3.9. Document Format Conversions ... > o Current Req-DOCCONVERT-1 - The IETF technical publisher should > accept as input ascii text files and publish documents as ascii > text files, postscript files, and pdf files. There has to be something wrong there. When the PS or PDF version contains graphics etc, surely the publisher must have accepted another format than pure ASCII? > 3.11. Publication Status Tracking Should we also have a requirement to include normative reference chains in the status tracking? > 3.13. Exception Handling ... > o Current Req-EXCEPTIONS-2 - The IETF technical publisher should > have the discretion to reject publication of an independent > submission based upon feedback from reviewers. I don't think this is properly called an exception, and I think it very much over-simplifies the issue - see my earlier message on this topic. > o Current Req-EXCEPTIONS-3 - The IETF technical publisher should > permit documents to be put on hold awaiting the outcome of an > appeal. Add: or a legal process. > 3.15. Post Publication Corrections We need to say something about technical vetting of errata. They can't just be published without checking them. Is this a task for the publisher? Does the publisher need IETF support for this? > 3.16. Indexing: maintenance of the catalog I believe there is an important missing piece here, i.e. the creation and maintenance of the hyperlinked index (http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html today). > 3.21. Tutorial and Help Services Missing requirement: responding to indvidual email queries (with a ticket system) > 4.1. Post-approval timeframes > 4.2. Publication Throughput I think the metrics should include median dwell times as well as the 90th percentile and throughput. Brian _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 18 13:30:12 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzI4S-0005N3-1E; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:30:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzI4O-0005Mq-UP for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:30:10 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA11110 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:28:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EzICl-0004Uz-Ac for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:38:48 -0500 Received: from [10.20.30.249] (adsl-66-125-125-65.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [66.125.125.65]) (authenticated bits=0) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id k0IITuXr061102; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 10:29:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <43CE4FB6.8050608@zurich.ibm.com> References: <43CE4FB6.8050608@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 10:21:05 -0800 To: Brian E Carpenter , techspec@ietf.org From: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d17f825e43c9aed4fd65b7edddddec89 Cc: Subject: [Techspec] Normative reference chains X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org At 3:24 PM +0100 1/18/06, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>3.11. Publication Status Tracking > >Should we also have a requirement to include normative reference >chains in the status tracking? Yes, definitely. This helps people looking at the queue to understand why a document is not being worked on by the editor. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 18 13:30:12 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzI4S-0005NS-5Q; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:30:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzI4O-0005Mr-Vh for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:30:11 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA11111 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:28:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EzICl-0004V3-Aa for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:38:48 -0500 Received: from [10.20.30.249] (adsl-66-125-125-65.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [66.125.125.65]) (authenticated bits=0) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id k0IITuXt061102; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 10:29:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <43CE4FB6.8050608@zurich.ibm.com> References: <43CE4FB6.8050608@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 10:29:28 -0800 To: Brian E Carpenter , techspec@ietf.org From: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 Cc: Subject: [Techspec] Errata handling X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org At 3:24 PM +0100 1/18/06, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>3.15. Post Publication Corrections > >We need to say something about technical vetting of errata. They >can't just be published without checking them. Fully agree. I recently had an issue where a disgruntled WG member who wasn't getting his way actually said "OK, I'll just get this as an errata after the RFC is published". >Is this a task for the publisher? Does the publisher need IETF support >for this? It depends on whether or not you want the publisher to do technical evaluation work, or whether they really are a publisher. If we follow Brian's suggestion for a independent review board (IRB) and take the independent submission vetting out of the hands of the publisher, then the IRB could also vet any non-editorial errata as well. That seems like a clear separation of duties that would make it clearer what the published does and does not do. In the past few years, the number of non-editorial errata is quite small, so this should not add much work to the ERB. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 18 13:36:08 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzIAC-00071S-R1; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:36:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzIAC-00071N-1w for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:36:08 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA11536 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:34:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from [204.9.221.21] (helo=thingmagic.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EzIIT-0004gl-CA for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:44:47 -0500 Received: from [66.30.121.250] (account margaret HELO ceili) by thingmagic.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.1) with ESMTPSA id 694935; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:35:50 -0500 From: "Margaret Wasserman" To: "'Paul Hoffman'" , "'Brian E Carpenter'" , Subject: RE: [Techspec] Errata handling Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:35:49 -0500 Message-ID: <000601c61c5e$014d8940$0402a8c0@instant802.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670 Thread-Index: AcYcXW1sxTJUXgJySd+9okUyNkfRNgAAF1vw In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Hi Paul, > It depends on whether or not you want the publisher to do > technical evaluation work, or whether they really are a > publisher. If we follow Brian's suggestion for a independent > review board (IRB) and take the independent submission > vetting out of the hands of the publisher, then the IRB could > also vet any non-editorial errata as well. That seems like a > clear separation of duties that would make it clearer what > the published does and does not do. In the past few years, > the number of non-editorial errata is quite small, so this > should not add much work to the ERB. Actually, I think it would make more sense for the IRB to vet errata for independently published documents (ones they approved in the first place) and for the IETF (either the pertinent WG if it still exists, or the area directors?) to vet technical errata to IETF publications. Margaret _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 18 15:01:49 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzJV7-0006pw-9D; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 15:01:49 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzJV3-0006pn-D7 for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 15:01:47 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA18675 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 15:00:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EzJdO-0007l5-OG for techspec@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 15:10:26 -0500 Received: from [10.20.30.249] (adsl-66-125-125-65.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [66.125.125.65]) (authenticated bits=0) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id k0IK1b5X073671; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:01:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000601c61c5e$014d8940$0402a8c0@instant802.com> References: <000601c61c5e$014d8940$0402a8c0@instant802.com> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:01:34 -0800 To: "Margaret Wasserman" , "'Brian E Carpenter'" , From: Paul Hoffman Subject: RE: [Techspec] Errata handling Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad Cc: X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org At 1:35 PM -0500 1/18/06, Margaret Wasserman wrote: >Actually, I think it would make more sense for the IRB to vet errata for >independently published documents (ones they approved in the first place) >and for the IETF (either the pertinent WG if it still exists, or the area >directors?) to vet technical errata to IETF publications. Sounds fine. That leaves out the independently published documents that were approved by the RFC Editor before the IRB appeared, but the number of errata for those is probably quite small and can be handled by the IRB as well. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jan 19 07:36:07 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzZ1L-000143-T0; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 07:36:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzZ1I-00013q-8I for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 07:36:06 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA17967 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 07:34:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtagate4.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.137]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EzZ9m-0005RB-3u for techspec@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 07:44:51 -0500 Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate4.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k0JCYcfw213702 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 12:34:43 GMT Received: from d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.229]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VERS6.8) with ESMTP id k0JCXqeD201140 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 13:33:52 +0100 Received: from d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k0JCXmF7015681 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 13:33:51 +0100 Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k0JCXl9d015643; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 13:33:47 +0100 Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-146-222-81.de.ibm.com [9.146.222.81]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA50226; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 13:33:38 +0100 Message-ID: <43CF8720.1040808@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 13:33:36 +0100 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thomas Narten Subject: Re: [Techspec] RE: New reuirement: Must publish within 2 months after approval References: <200601181340.k0IDeGvQ022167@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <200601181340.k0IDeGvQ022167@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: techspec@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Thomas Narten wrote: >>>Also, because of the two month timeout in the RFC 2026 appeal >>>process, it turns out that our standards process actually implies >>>that an RFC MUST NOT be published until two months after approval. > > >>I don't see that that follows - we can always declare the mis-published RFC >>Historical and publish a fixed one later, as we did with (for instance) the >>RFCs for RADIUS that came out with the wrong port numbers in them, or the >>SNMPv3 RFCs that turned out to have the wrong encrypted-values in the >>examples. > > > I strongly concur. Our processes should (by default) be forward > looking. We should not be adding extra (and harmful) delay to our > processes in order to facilitate appeals, or those that would raise > them. Let's not have the cost outweigh the benefit! I can buy this argument, but note that it is at least a clarification if not an actual update to RFC 2026. And the notion of a withdrawn RFC is new. So we have to be very clear about that. Brian _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jan 19 07:39:37 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzZ4j-0002Tl-Eu; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 07:39:37 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzZ4i-0002Tg-Fs for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 07:39:36 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA18230 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 07:38:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([158.38.152.233]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EzZDC-0005Yu-M0 for techspec@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 07:48:26 -0500 Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id C021E2596FE; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 13:38:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 05700-03; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 13:38:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.1.160] (163.80-203-220.nextgentel.com [80.203.220.163]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DD0F2596F9; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 13:38:14 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 13:39:21 +0100 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand To: Brian E Carpenter , Thomas Narten Subject: Re: [Techspec] RE: New reuirement: Must publish within 2 months after approval Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <43CF8720.1040808@zurich.ibm.com> References: <200601181340.k0IDeGvQ022167@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <43CF8720.1040808@zurich.ibm.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.6 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: techspec@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org --On torsdag, januar 19, 2006 13:33:36 +0100 Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> I strongly concur. Our processes should (by default) be forward >> looking. We should not be adding extra (and harmful) delay to our >> processes in order to facilitate appeals, or those that would raise >> them. Let's not have the cost outweigh the benefit! > > I can buy this argument, but note that it is at least a clarification > if not an actual update to RFC 2026. And the notion of a withdrawn RFC > is new. So we have to be very clear about that. There should be no reason to *withdraw* ("unpublish") the RFC, as I said in my previous mail. And the status for a superseded RFC is pretty clear: It's called "Historic". _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jan 19 13:38:40 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzegC-000670-B4; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 13:38:40 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Ezeg7-0005rK-Rq for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 13:38:38 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA15056 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 13:37:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from boreas.isi.edu ([128.9.160.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ezeoh-0000tb-47 for techspec@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 13:47:28 -0500 Received: from gra.isi.edu (gra.isi.edu [128.9.160.133]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id k0JIaii00396; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:36:44 -0800 (PST) From: Bob Braden Received: (from braden@localhost) by gra.isi.edu (8.9.3/8.8.6) id KAA13344; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:36:44 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:36:44 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200601191836.KAA13344@gra.isi.edu> To: narten@us.ibm.com, brc@zurich.ibm.com Subject: Re: [Techspec] RE: New reuirement: Must publish within 2 months after approval X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: braden@isi.edu X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 30ac594df0e66ffa5a93eb4c48bcb014 Cc: techspec@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org *> And the notion of a withdrawn RFC *> is new. And, to some of us, ludicrous. Bob Braden _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jan 19 19:13:15 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Ezjtz-0006Fs-08; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:13:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Ezjtw-0006FI-PN for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:13:13 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA13108 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:11:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from zeke.hxr.us ([69.31.8.124] helo=zeke.ecotroph.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ezk2Z-0003rM-2n for techspec@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:22:08 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.101] ([::ffff:64.102.254.33]) (AUTH: PLAIN leslie, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by zeke.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:12:31 -0500 id 01588075.43D02AEF.00004E7B Message-ID: <43D02B06.301@thinkingcat.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:12:54 -0500 From: Leslie Daigle User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Macintosh/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" Subject: Re: Individual submissions [was: [Techspec] New version of mankin-pu b-req available] References: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15509154B74@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> In-Reply-To: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15509154B74@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 3e15cc4fdc61d7bce84032741d11c8e5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: techspec@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Actually -- the scope of this discussion is *IETF* documents. So, it would be appropriate to define what IETF technical publications are (i.e., include IAB/IRTF/individual to AD?). But, we scoped this discussion to specifically avoid the handling of independent individual submissions... Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: > I think we have a Potential requirement that individual submissions > be separate from IETF submitted documents and that those individual > submissions do not belong in the "IETF Technical Publication process" > Or to word it positive: > > Potential requirement: Only IETF submitted documents (i.e. through > the IESG, IAB or IRTF) are part of the IETF Publication Process > > Bert > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: techspec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:techspec-bounces@ietf.org]On >>Behalf Of Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS) >>Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 22:03 >>To: techspec@ietf.org >>Subject: [Techspec] New version of mankin-pub-req available >> >> >>The -02 version of the technical publication requirements is >>available at >>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mankin-pub-req-02.tx >>t. It is an extensive rewrite of the -01 version with an eye >>to taking a more systematic approach. The new version is >>basically a laundry list of requirements (both current and >>potential) against a technical publisher. The goal is to >>provide a framework in which we can decide what the IETF >>wants a technical publisher to do and what level of >>performance we want to see. >> >>Comments eagerly awaited. >> >>Stephen Hayes >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Techspec mailing list >>Techspec@ietf.org >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Techspec mailing list > Techspec@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec > _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jan 19 19:13:56 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Ezjue-0006wm-DF; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:13:56 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Ezjua-0006ot-75 for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:13:55 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA13192 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:12:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from zeke.hxr.us ([69.31.8.124] helo=zeke.ecotroph.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ezk3B-0003rM-G4 for techspec@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:22:47 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.101] ([::ffff:64.102.254.33]) (AUTH: PLAIN leslie, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by zeke.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:13:17 -0500 id 01588075.43D02B1D.00004ED4 Message-ID: <43D02B31.4070608@thinkingcat.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:13:37 -0500 From: Leslie Daigle User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Macintosh/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter Subject: Re: Individual submissions [was: [Techspec] New version of mankin-pu b-req available] References: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15509154B74@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> <43CE438E.8010305@zurich.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <43CE438E.8010305@zurich.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e8a67952aa972b528dd04570d58ad8fe Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: techspec@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org ... rathole. Last I checked, independent individual submissions were not part of this discussion. Leslie. Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Bert, > > Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: > >> I think we have a Potential requirement that individual submissions >> be separate from IETF submitted documents and that those individual >> submissions do not belong in the "IETF Technical Publication process" >> Or to word it positive: >> >> Potential requirement: Only IETF submitted documents (i.e. through >> the IESG, IAB or IRTF) are part of the IETF Publication Process > > > Personal comments: > > Since you raise it, I'd like to take a slightly different cut. > Your statement isn't really a requirement, in fact. > > There are good reasons to have a publication process that bypasses > IESG approval - it's one of the checks and balances in our system. > In fact, it has its own built-in check and balance, RFC 3932. > > However, as the need for RFC 3932 shows, it's really illusory to > pretend that it's completely separate from the IETF community and > its processes. So I would suggest a new process. > > 1. There should be a process by which technical specifications that have > not been submitted for approval by the IESG are published. > > 2. They may not be standards track or BCP. > > 3. They must be published first as I-Ds. > > 4. The IETF establishes an independent review board (IRB) for such > documents, whose reviews shall be published. > > 5. If the IRB wishes to publish a draft, it must submit it to the IESG, not > for approval, but for review according to the criteria in RFC 3932 > (non conflict with IETF work). > > 6. In the event the the IESG recommends against publication and the IRB > decides to publish, a note written by the IESG must be included. > > 7. After that the draft goes to the technical publisher just like > an IESG-approved draft. > > Brian > > > _______________________________________________ > Techspec mailing list > Techspec@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec > _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jan 19 19:15:55 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzjwZ-0007qI-1l; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:15:55 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzjwX-0007qD-6p for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:15:53 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA13304 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:14:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from zeke.blacka.com ([69.31.8.124] helo=zeke.ecotroph.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ezk5A-0003wb-IG for techspec@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:24:48 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.101] ([::ffff:64.102.254.33]) (AUTH: PLAIN leslie, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by zeke.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:15:12 -0500 id 01588075.43D02B90.00004F40 Message-ID: <43D02BA7.70301@thinkingcat.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:15:35 -0500 From: Leslie Daigle User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Macintosh/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter Subject: Re: [Techspec] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-mankin-pub-req-03.txt References: <43CE4FB6.8050608@zurich.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <43CE4FB6.8050608@zurich.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: techspec@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org I *assume* individual submissions that go to an AD are considered IETF technical specifications (otherwise, why is the IESG spending time on them?). So then, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> 3.13. Exception Handling > > > ... > >> o Current Req-EXCEPTIONS-2 - The IETF technical publisher should >> have the discretion to reject publication of an independent >> submission based upon feedback from reviewers. > > > I don't think this is properly called an exception, and I think it > very much over-simplifies the issue - see my earlier message on > this topic. Req-EXCEPTIONS-2 doesn't belong in this document, as far as I can tell. Leslie. _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jan 19 19:18:00 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Ezjya-0000bK-Mp; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:18:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzjyU-0000Zn-Uc for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:17:59 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA13524 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:16:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from zeke.ecotroph.net ([69.31.8.124]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ezk77-00041Y-BR for techspec@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:26:50 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.101] ([::ffff:64.102.254.33]) (AUTH: PLAIN leslie, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by zeke.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:17:07 -0500 id 01588075.43D02C09.00004F72 Message-ID: <43D02C1A.6020602@thinkingcat.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:17:30 -0500 From: Leslie Daigle User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Macintosh/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: techspec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Techspec] RE: New reuirement: Must publish within 2 months after approval References: <200601181340.k0IDeGvQ022167@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <43CF8720.1040808@zurich.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <43CF8720.1040808@zurich.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: c1c65599517f9ac32519d043c37c5336 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org This is an important question to get sorted out. And, it impacts the (motivation for) the discussion of permanent stable identifiers post-approval. (STD series numbering is not the issue under discussion in that requirement. I had assumed/understood NEWTRK was going to sort out what our document series are called/how they are handled, and techspec should follow from that). Leslie. Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Thomas Narten wrote: > >>>> Also, because of the two month timeout in the RFC 2026 appeal >>>> process, it turns out that our standards process actually implies >>>> that an RFC MUST NOT be published until two months after approval. >> >> >> >>> I don't see that that follows - we can always declare the >>> mis-published RFC Historical and publish a fixed one later, as we did >>> with (for instance) the RFCs for RADIUS that came out with the wrong >>> port numbers in them, or the SNMPv3 RFCs that turned out to have the >>> wrong encrypted-values in the examples. >> >> >> >> I strongly concur. Our processes should (by default) be forward >> looking. We should not be adding extra (and harmful) delay to our >> processes in order to facilitate appeals, or those that would raise >> them. Let's not have the cost outweigh the benefit! > > > I can buy this argument, but note that it is at least a clarification > if not an actual update to RFC 2026. And the notion of a withdrawn RFC > is new. So we have to be very clear about that. > > Brian > > > _______________________________________________ > Techspec mailing list > Techspec@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec > _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jan 19 19:52:50 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzkWI-0002gG-LS; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:52:50 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzkWH-0002fx-FZ for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:52:49 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16562 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:51:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.100] ident=firewall-user) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ezkeu-00055g-1H for techspec@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 20:01:45 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id k0K0qGCQ006177 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:52:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from filbert.tislabs.com(10.66.1.10) by nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0) id srcAAAY5aydm; Thu, 19 Jan 06 19:52:13 -0500 Received: from localhost (weiler@localhost) by tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id k0K0se2r018585 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:54:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:54:40 -0500 (EST) From: Samuel Weiler To: techspec@ietf.org Subject: Re: Individual submissions [was: [Techspec] New version of mankin-pu b-req available] In-Reply-To: <43D02B31.4070608@thinkingcat.com> Message-ID: References: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15509154B74@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> <43CE438E.8010305@zurich.ibm.com> <43D02B31.4070608@thinkingcat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Leslie Daigle wrote: > Last I checked, independent individual submissions were not > part of this discussion. That's disappointing. At the Vancouver meeting, I attempted to make the case that having a lower-overhead archival publication track is important. Something like the RFC Editor's current ISR path (RFC3932) can help keep some of the cruft out of the higher-overhead track -- in particular, it provides a credible place for a WG to send work that the WG doesn't have the resources or will to spend time on. I think the existence of a lower-overhead archival publication mechanism should be added to our requirements -- it needn't be the current ISR/3932 process (though I think the ISR process could work), it needn't be operated by the same entity that publishes IETF documents (though it would make some amount of sense for it to be), nor does it need to publish in the RFC series (though I'd prefer it to) -- we just need the functionality. I don't think we have to go into great depth about the details of the lower-overhead archival track at this point, I just want its existence to be documented as a requirement. -- Sam _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jan 20 05:14:37 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EztHx-00078K-G7; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 05:14:37 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EztHv-000788-ED for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 05:14:35 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA27833 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 05:13:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com ([192.11.222.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EztQd-0006EJ-FX for techspec@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 05:23:35 -0500 Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k0KAEQ9M021051; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 04:14:27 -0600 (CST) Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:14:25 +0100 Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15509155690@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" To: Leslie Daigle Subject: RE: Individual submissions [was: [Techspec] New version of manki n-pu b-req available] Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:14:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d185fa790257f526fedfd5d01ed9c976 Cc: techspec@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Leslie, I think that is what I was trying to say in my posting. Th revision I read seemed to include the individual submissions to RFC-Editor and I thought we needed to exclude that from our IETF requirements. I think I like your approach even better than mine. So do not make an explicit statement of one set of submission that is NOT included (there could be thousands of such indeed), but instead do a very clear definition of documents that we DO consider to be IETF documents. Thanks for suggesting the better approach. Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Leslie Daigle [mailto:leslie@thinkingcat.com] > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 01:13 > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > Cc: Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS); techspec@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Individual submissions [was: [Techspec] New version of > mankin-pu b-req available] > > > > Actually -- the scope of this discussion is *IETF* documents. > > So, it would be appropriate to define what IETF technical publications > are (i.e., include IAB/IRTF/individual to AD?). But, we scoped > this discussion to specifically avoid the handling of independent > individual submissions... > > Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: > > I think we have a Potential requirement that individual submissions > > be separate from IETF submitted documents and that those individual > > submissions do not belong in the "IETF Technical > Publication process" > > Or to word it positive: > > > > Potential requirement: Only IETF submitted documents (i.e. through > > the IESG, IAB or IRTF) are part of the IETF Publication Process > > > > Bert > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: techspec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:techspec-bounces@ietf.org]On > >>Behalf Of Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS) > >>Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 22:03 > >>To: techspec@ietf.org > >>Subject: [Techspec] New version of mankin-pub-req available > >> > >> > >>The -02 version of the technical publication requirements is > >>available at > >>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mankin-pub-req-02.tx > >>t. It is an extensive rewrite of the -01 version with an eye > >>to taking a more systematic approach. The new version is > >>basically a laundry list of requirements (both current and > >>potential) against a technical publisher. The goal is to > >>provide a framework in which we can decide what the IETF > >>wants a technical publisher to do and what level of > >>performance we want to see. > >> > >>Comments eagerly awaited. > >> > >>Stephen Hayes > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>Techspec mailing list > >>Techspec@ietf.org > >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Techspec mailing list > > Techspec@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec > > > _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jan 20 05:14:37 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EztHx-00078i-MK; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 05:14:37 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EztHv-00077k-8q for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 05:14:35 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA27835 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 05:13:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com ([192.11.222.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EztQc-0006E5-Jg for techspec@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 05:23:35 -0500 Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k0KAEQl9021052; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 04:14:27 -0600 (CST) Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:14:25 +0100 Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550915568E@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" To: Leslie Daigle , Brian E Carpenter Subject: RE: [Techspec] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-mankin-pub-req-03.txt Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:14:16 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0ddefe323dd869ab027dbfff7eff0465 Cc: techspec@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org I agree with Leslie here. Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: techspec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:techspec-bounces@ietf.org]On > Behalf Of Leslie Daigle > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 01:16 > To: Brian E Carpenter > Cc: techspec@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Techspec] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-mankin-pub-req-03.txt > > > > I *assume* individual submissions that go to an AD > are considered IETF technical specifications (otherwise, > why is the IESG spending time on them?). > > So then, > > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > >> 3.13. Exception Handling > > > > > > ... > > > >> o Current Req-EXCEPTIONS-2 - The IETF technical > publisher should > >> have the discretion to reject publication of an independent > >> submission based upon feedback from reviewers. > > > > > > I don't think this is properly called an exception, and I think it > > very much over-simplifies the issue - see my earlier message on > > this topic. > > > Req-EXCEPTIONS-2 doesn't belong in this document, as far as I > can tell. > > > Leslie. > > > _______________________________________________ > Techspec mailing list > Techspec@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec > _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jan 20 07:24:56 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzvK3-0002sU-Ut; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 07:24:55 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzvK1-0002s5-Jq for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 07:24:53 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA08175 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 07:23:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtagate2.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.151]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EzvSj-0002IM-0l for techspec@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 07:33:55 -0500 Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate2.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k0KCOeI5215092 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:24:40 GMT Received: from d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.229]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VERS6.8) with ESMTP id k0KCOb8Q107594 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 13:24:37 +0100 Received: from d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k0KCObDv006454 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 13:24:37 +0100 Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k0KCOamf006446; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 13:24:36 +0100 Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-145-134-195.de.ibm.com [9.145.134.195]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA38370; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 13:24:36 +0100 Message-ID: <43D0D681.8080306@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 13:24:33 +0100 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Leslie Daigle Subject: STD series numbering [Re: [Techspec] RE: New reuirement: Must publish within 2 months after approval] References: <200601181340.k0IDeGvQ022167@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <43CF8720.1040808@zurich.ibm.com> <43D02C1A.6020602@thinkingcat.com> In-Reply-To: <43D02C1A.6020602@thinkingcat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 1ac7cc0a4cd376402b85bc1961a86ac2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: techspec@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Leslie Daigle wrote: ... > (STD series numbering is not the issue under discussion in > that requirement. I had assumed/understood NEWTRK was going to > sort out what our document series are called/how they are handled, > and techspec should follow from that). True - the techspec requirement is that the publisher should do what the IETF process requires in the way of assigning STD and BCP type designations. Brian _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jan 20 07:28:35 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzvNb-0003XX-Qo; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 07:28:35 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzvNb-0003XA-Aq for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 07:28:35 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA08480 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 07:27:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtagate2.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.135]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EzvWI-0002PU-1V for techspec@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 07:37:37 -0500 Received: from d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.38.185]) by mtagate2.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k0KCQxoM111144 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:27:03 GMT Received: from d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.216]) by d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VERS6.8) with ESMTP id k0KCQx5l231912 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:26:59 GMT Received: from d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k0KCQxXr001373 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:26:59 GMT Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k0KCQwiU001361; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:26:59 GMT Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-145-134-195.de.ibm.com [9.145.134.195]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA29490; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 13:26:57 +0100 Message-ID: <43D0D70E.5000408@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 13:26:54 +0100 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" Subject: Re: [Techspec] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-mankin-pub-req-03.txt References: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550915568E@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> In-Reply-To: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550915568E@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b4a0a5f5992e2a4954405484e7717d8c Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: techspec@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: > I agree with Leslie here. We all agree it's a distinct topic. I would tend to argue for it being in techspec scope, because I don't see where else it can be discussed, but I suspect Leslie disagrees. Brian > > Bert > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: techspec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:techspec-bounces@ietf.org]On >>Behalf Of Leslie Daigle >>Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 01:16 >>To: Brian E Carpenter >>Cc: techspec@ietf.org >>Subject: Re: [Techspec] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-mankin-pub-req-03.txt >> >> >> >>I *assume* individual submissions that go to an AD >>are considered IETF technical specifications (otherwise, >>why is the IESG spending time on them?). >> >>So then, >> >>Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> >> >>>>3.13. Exception Handling >>> >>> >>>... >>> >>> >>>> o Current Req-EXCEPTIONS-2 - The IETF technical >> >>publisher should >> >>>> have the discretion to reject publication of an independent >>>> submission based upon feedback from reviewers. >>> >>> >>>I don't think this is properly called an exception, and I think it >>>very much over-simplifies the issue - see my earlier message on >>>this topic. >> >> >>Req-EXCEPTIONS-2 doesn't belong in this document, as far as I >>can tell. >> >> >>Leslie. >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Techspec mailing list >>Techspec@ietf.org >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec >> > > _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jan 20 09:03:28 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzwrQ-0005F7-5S; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 09:03:28 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EzwrO-0005ET-4w for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 09:03:26 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA14983 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 09:01:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com ([192.11.222.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ezx07-0005FW-3H for techspec@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 09:12:28 -0500 Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k0KE3Fq9019342; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 08:03:15 -0600 (CST) Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 15:03:14 +0100 Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550915577B@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" To: Brian E Carpenter Subject: RE: [Techspec] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-mankin-pub-req-03.txt Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 15:03:10 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22 Cc: techspec@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Brian answers me: > > Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: > > I agree with Leslie here. > > We all agree it's a distinct topic. I would tend to argue for it > being in techspec scope, because I don't see where else it can > be discussed, but I suspect Leslie disagrees. > I think that in TechSpec we want to document our requirements for an IETF publication process. Currently that is documents send from IESG, IAB and IRTF to the RFC-Editor. I would think that it is good to define those 3 types of documents as being the ones we have been considering. If in the future there are other categories, then I guess they would ny default have the same requirements. If not, then we may need to update the TechSpec document at that time. The other place to discuss individual-submissions-directly-to-rfced could be NewTrk or maybe general ietf mailing list. Or someone could setup a separate list for that. Just my (personal) thinking. Bert > Brian _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jan 20 12:27:35 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F002x-00027A-7v; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:27:35 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F002v-00023a-F4 for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:27:33 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03027 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:26:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from zeke.ecotroph.net ([69.31.8.124]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F00Bh-0004JV-SV for techspec@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:36:38 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.101] ([::ffff:64.102.254.33]) (AUTH: PLAIN leslie, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by zeke.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:26:52 -0500 id 0158807D.43D11D5C.00000A46 Message-ID: <43D11D72.5080904@thinkingcat.com> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:27:14 -0500 From: Leslie Daigle User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Macintosh/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter Subject: Re: [Techspec] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-mankin-pub-req-03.txt References: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550915568E@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> <43D0D70E.5000408@zurich.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <43D0D70E.5000408@zurich.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b7b9551d71acde901886cc48bfc088a6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: techspec@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org You're right about my disagreement :-) I don't in any way disagree that it is an important discussion to have. But, the purpose of scoping techspec was (the usual) one of identifying a problem we could focus on and solve, without too many distractions. And I stand by that scoping, here. Leslie. Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: > >> I agree with Leslie here. > > > We all agree it's a distinct topic. I would tend to argue for it > being in techspec scope, because I don't see where else it can > be discussed, but I suspect Leslie disagrees. > > Brian > >> >> Bert >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: techspec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:techspec-bounces@ietf.org]On >>> Behalf Of Leslie Daigle >>> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 01:16 >>> To: Brian E Carpenter >>> Cc: techspec@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: [Techspec] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-mankin-pub-req-03.txt >>> >>> >>> >>> I *assume* individual submissions that go to an AD >>> are considered IETF technical specifications (otherwise, >>> why is the IESG spending time on them?). >>> >>> So then, >>> >>> Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> 3.13. Exception Handling >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>> >>>>> o Current Req-EXCEPTIONS-2 - The IETF technical >>> >>> >>> publisher should >>> >>>>> have the discretion to reject publication of an independent >>>>> submission based upon feedback from reviewers. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I don't think this is properly called an exception, and I think it >>>> very much over-simplifies the issue - see my earlier message on >>>> this topic. >>> >>> >>> >>> Req-EXCEPTIONS-2 doesn't belong in this document, as far as I can tell. >>> >>> >>> Leslie. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Techspec mailing list >>> Techspec@ietf.org >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jan 20 12:30:19 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F005b-0002ud-Gj; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:30:19 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F005a-0002uY-Ce for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:30:18 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03228 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:28:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from zeke.hxr.us ([69.31.8.124] helo=zeke.ecotroph.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F00EL-0004Oq-Rq for techspec@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:39:23 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.101] ([::ffff:64.102.254.33]) (AUTH: PLAIN leslie, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by zeke.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:29:36 -0500 id 01588081.43D11E00.00000ADE Message-ID: <43D11E16.10407@thinkingcat.com> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:29:58 -0500 From: Leslie Daigle User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Macintosh/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter Subject: Re: STD series numbering [Re: [Techspec] RE: New reuirement: Must publish within 2 months after approval] References: <200601181340.k0IDeGvQ022167@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <43CF8720.1040808@zurich.ibm.com> <43D02C1A.6020602@thinkingcat.com> <43D0D681.8080306@zurich.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <43D0D681.8080306@zurich.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: techspec@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Agreed -- *whatever* designations are appropriate and required for the technical specification process: "high fibre" "so-5minutes-ago" "STD-Gold" "not-an-RFC", "BCP", whatever. Leslie. Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > Leslie Daigle wrote: > ... > >> (STD series numbering is not the issue under discussion in >> that requirement. I had assumed/understood NEWTRK was going to >> sort out what our document series are called/how they are handled, >> and techspec should follow from that). > > > True - the techspec requirement is that the publisher should do > what the IETF process requires in the way of assigning STD and > BCP type designations. > > Brian > _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jan 20 12:39:34 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F00EY-0008DS-2r; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:39:34 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F00EW-0008DI-LA for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:39:32 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04053 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:38:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from vapor.isi.edu ([128.9.64.64]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F00NI-0004jB-0K for techspec@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:48:37 -0500 Received: from [10.0.1.4] (static-71-246-51-26.lsanca.fios.verizon.net [71.246.51.26]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id k0KHboQ18188; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 09:37:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <43D11D72.5080904@thinkingcat.com> References: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550915568E@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> <43D0D70E.5000408@zurich.ibm.com> <43D11D72.5080904@thinkingcat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Aaron Falk Subject: Re: [Techspec] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-mankin-pub-req-03.txt Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 09:37:49 -0800 To: Leslie Daigle X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: falk@isi.edu X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: techspec@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org On Jan 20, 2006, at 9:27 AM, Leslie Daigle wrote: > But, the purpose of scoping > techspec was (the usual) one of identifying a problem > we could focus on and solve, without too many distractions. FWIW, RFC3932 has a taxonomy of documents: > o IETF Working Group (WG) to Standards Track: Includes WG > consensus, > review in the IETF, IETF Last Call, and IESG approval > > o IETF WG to Experimental/Informational: Includes WG consensus, > review in the IETF, and IESG approval > > o Area Director (AD) sponsored to Standards Track: Includes review > in the IETF, IETF Last Call, and IESG approval > > o AD Sponsored Individual to Experimental/Informational: Includes > some form of review in the IETF and IESG approval > > o Documents for which special rules exist > > o RFC Editor documents to Experimental/Informational My understanding is that techspec was chartered to address all but the last. --aaron _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jan 20 18:43:44 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F05uy-00005g-S7; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 18:43:44 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F05uv-00004v-IT for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 18:43:44 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA12607 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 18:42:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from boreas.isi.edu ([128.9.160.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F063j-0003rV-J7 for techspec@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 18:52:49 -0500 Received: from gra.isi.edu (gra.isi.edu [128.9.160.133]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id k0KNffi16928; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 15:41:41 -0800 (PST) From: Bob Braden Received: (from braden@localhost) by gra.isi.edu (8.9.3/8.8.6) id PAA14003; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 15:41:41 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 15:41:41 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200601202341.PAA14003@gra.isi.edu> To: bwijnen@lucent.com, brc@zurich.ibm.com Subject: Re: [Techspec] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-mankin-pub-req-03.txt X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: braden@isi.edu X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 Cc: techspec@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org *> >> *> >>I *assume* individual submissions that go to an AD *> >>are considered IETF technical specifications (otherwise, *> >>why is the IESG spending time on them?). *> >> Once again, with feeling: To avoid confusion, the RFC Editor uses the term "individual submission" for a non-working group document that goes through the IESG, shepherded by an AD, and arrives at the RFC Editor as an IETF submission. We use "independent submission", aka "RFC Editor submissions", for a document that goes directly to the RFC Editor for approval, independent of the IETF process. We would like to suggest that using any other terminology at this point would be enormously confusing. RFC Editor/bb _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jan 22 04:05:43 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F0bAN-0007aD-RG; Sun, 22 Jan 2006 04:05:43 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F0bAM-0007a8-Bm for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jan 2006 04:05:42 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA03715 for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2006 04:04:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtagate1.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.150]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F0bJS-0004xd-AG for techspec@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jan 2006 04:15:07 -0500 Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate1.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k0M95VOl267148 for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2006 09:05:31 GMT Received: from d12av03.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av03.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.213]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VERS6.8) with ESMTP id k0M95UVv143230 for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:05:30 +0100 Received: from d12av03.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av03.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k0M95Ucr027963 for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:05:30 +0100 Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d12av03.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k0M95UJI027948; Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:05:30 +0100 Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-145-130-30.de.ibm.com [9.145.130.30]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA25478; Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:05:28 +0100 Message-ID: <43D34AD2.5060907@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:05:22 +0100 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bob Braden Subject: Re: [Techspec] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-mankin-pub-req-03.txt References: <200601202341.PAA14003@gra.isi.edu> In-Reply-To: <200601202341.PAA14003@gra.isi.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: techspec@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Bob Braden wrote: > *> >> > *> >>I *assume* individual submissions that go to an AD > *> >>are considered IETF technical specifications (otherwise, > *> >>why is the IESG spending time on them?). > *> >> > > Once again, with feeling: > > To avoid confusion, the RFC Editor uses the term "individual > submission" for a non-working group document that goes through the > IESG, shepherded by an AD, and arrives at the RFC Editor as an IETF > submission. We use "independent submission", aka "RFC Editor > submissions", for a document that goes directly to the RFC Editor for > approval, independent of the IETF process. > > We would like to suggest that using any other terminology at this > point would be enormously confusing. Bob, I agree, but it's easy to accidentally transpose "individual" and "independent". Brian _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jan 22 04:07:04 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F0bBg-0007vN-Ap; Sun, 22 Jan 2006 04:07:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F0bBf-0007vF-Dy for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jan 2006 04:07:03 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA03857 for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2006 04:05:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtagate1.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.134]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F0bKm-000517-Ay for techspec@ietf.org; Sun, 22 Jan 2006 04:16:28 -0500 Received: from d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.38.185]) by mtagate1.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k0M96rx0173938 for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2006 09:06:53 GMT Received: from d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.212]) by d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VERS6.8) with ESMTP id k0M96rYP222950 for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2006 09:06:53 GMT Received: from d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k0M96qha015646 for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2006 09:06:52 GMT Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k0M96qSD015637; Sun, 22 Jan 2006 09:06:52 GMT Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-145-130-30.de.ibm.com [9.145.130.30]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA61482; Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:06:51 +0100 Message-ID: <43D34B2A.6010001@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:06:50 +0100 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Leslie Daigle Subject: Re: [Techspec] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-mankin-pub-req-03.txt References: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550915568E@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> <43D0D70E.5000408@zurich.ibm.com> <43D11D72.5080904@thinkingcat.com> In-Reply-To: <43D11D72.5080904@thinkingcat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 14582b0692e7f70ce7111d04db3781c8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: techspec@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org OK! Brian Leslie Daigle wrote: > > You're right about my disagreement :-) > > I don't in any way disagree that it is an important > discussion to have. But, the purpose of scoping > techspec was (the usual) one of identifying a problem > we could focus on and solve, without too many distractions. > > And I stand by that scoping, here. > > Leslie. > > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: >> >>> I agree with Leslie here. >> >> >> >> We all agree it's a distinct topic. I would tend to argue for it >> being in techspec scope, because I don't see where else it can >> be discussed, but I suspect Leslie disagrees. >> >> Brian >> >>> >>> Bert >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: techspec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:techspec-bounces@ietf.org]On >>>> Behalf Of Leslie Daigle >>>> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 01:16 >>>> To: Brian E Carpenter >>>> Cc: techspec@ietf.org >>>> Subject: Re: [Techspec] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-mankin-pub-req-03.txt >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I *assume* individual submissions that go to an AD >>>> are considered IETF technical specifications (otherwise, >>>> why is the IESG spending time on them?). >>>> >>>> So then, >>>> >>>> Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>> 3.13. Exception Handling >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> o Current Req-EXCEPTIONS-2 - The IETF technical >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> publisher should >>>> >>>>>> have the discretion to reject publication of an independent >>>>>> submission based upon feedback from reviewers. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't think this is properly called an exception, and I think it >>>>> very much over-simplifies the issue - see my earlier message on >>>>> this topic. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Req-EXCEPTIONS-2 doesn't belong in this document, as far as I can tell. >>>> >>>> >>>> Leslie. >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Techspec mailing list >>>> Techspec@ietf.org >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec >>>> >>> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 23 09:36:37 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F12o9-0004ri-Lf; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:36:37 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F12o7-0004rW-4L for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:36:36 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23484 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:35:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from imr1.ericy.com ([198.24.6.9]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F12xS-0008Su-JW for techspec@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:46:16 -0500 Received: from eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se (eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.133.38]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k0NEaHfO026613 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:36:17 -0600 Received: by eamrcnt760 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:36:17 -0600 Message-ID: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003801BE114F@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> From: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" To: techspec@ietf.org Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:36:12 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed Subject: [Techspec] Issues and timeline for pub-req X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Based upon the discussions so far, I have identified 7 issues associated with mankin-pub-req-03. In 7 separate mails I have proposed a possible resolution of each issue. I assume I will get feedback on these issues from those disagreeing. Also, please let me know any issue I have missed. My goal is to produce a new version of mankin-pub-req on Monday next week (January 30, 2006) so I would appreciate any comments by then. My goal is to have a version that documents all the current and potential requirements. After that we should then move on to the harder task of deciding which of those potential or current requirements should stay and which should go away. Stephen Hayes _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 23 09:36:40 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F12oB-0004sL-Tp; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:36:39 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F12oA-0004s9-W3 for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:36:39 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23492 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:35:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from imr1.ericy.com ([198.24.6.9]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F12xV-0008TG-Rd for techspec@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:46:19 -0500 Received: from eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se (eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.133.38]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k0NEaRSQ026642 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:36:27 -0600 Received: by eamrcnt760 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:36:27 -0600 Message-ID: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003801BE1150@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> From: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" To: techspec@ietf.org Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:36:21 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Subject: [Techspec] Issue 1: Source Code Archiving X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Requirement on a way to maintain and archive source files associated with a draft. Proposed Resolution: Add in potential requirements along the lines of: Potential Req-POSTCORR-4 - The IETF technical publisher should ensure that any source documents associated with a publication are also updated in concert with their associated specifications. Potential Req-INDEX-5 - The IETF technical publisher should provide the permanent archival of any source documents associated with a published specification. _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 23 09:36:49 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F12oL-0004tQ-5X; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:36:49 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F12oJ-0004t8-DN for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:36:47 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23503 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:35:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from imr1.ericy.com ([198.24.6.9]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F12xf-0008Te-Qo for techspec@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:46:28 -0500 Received: from eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se (eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.133.38]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k0NEabQZ026680 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:36:37 -0600 Received: by eamrcnt760 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:36:37 -0600 Message-ID: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003801BE1151@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> From: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" To: techspec@ietf.org Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:36:28 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Subject: [Techspec] Issue 2: Clarifying Scope of IETF Publication Process X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Does techspec (and the pub-req) draft address independent submissions? Proposed Resolution: Scope the draft to indicate explicitly what is covered. Update the scope section to indicate that this draft only addresses those documents submitted to the IETF via the IAB, IESG, or IRTF. This includes individual submissions that go through the IETF. It specifically excludes independent submissions that go directly to the Technical Publisher. The handling of independent submissions may well be a requirement on the technical publisher, but it is not one associated with the IETF publication process and hence is outside the scope of this document. The following requirement should be removed: Current Req-EXCEPTIONS-2 - The IETF technical publisher should have the discretion to reject publication of an independent submission based upon feedback from reviewers. _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 23 09:36:49 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F12oL-0004ts-Cy; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:36:49 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F12oK-0004tG-4X for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:36:48 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23506 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:35:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from imr1.ericy.com ([198.24.6.9]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F12xf-0008Tc-Lz for techspec@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:46:28 -0500 Received: from eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se (eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.133.38]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k0NEabAF026679 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:36:37 -0600 Received: by eamrcnt760 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:36:37 -0600 Message-ID: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003801BE1152@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> From: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" To: techspec@ietf.org Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:36:36 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Subject: [Techspec] Issue 3: Checking of Errata X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Requirement on ensuring that new versions of a spec includes errata changes on the previous version. Proposed Resolution: No change to the requirements since this should be done by IETF and not by the technical publisher However: add a bullet to Section 5 (IETF Implications of Technical Publication Requirements) indicating that this process needs to be specified in the IETF so that we don't loose track of it. _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 23 09:36:58 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F12oU-0004ut-Kx; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:36:58 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F12oT-0004un-Sl for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:36:57 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23515 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:35:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from imr1.ericy.com ([198.24.6.9]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F12xp-0008U0-H9 for techspec@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:46:38 -0500 Received: from eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se (eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.133.38]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k0NEalnj026713 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:36:47 -0600 Received: by eamrcnt760 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:36:47 -0600 Message-ID: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003801BE1153@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> From: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" To: techspec@ietf.org Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:36:42 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c Subject: [Techspec] Issue 4: Publication time criteria X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Requirement on what criteria to specify on how long to publish a document. Proposed Resolution: Basically we are telling the technical publisher how high to jump. So we can have endless arguments on how to measure it and what number we should pick. I am going to throw out a number to get the fight started. It may turn out that the final number will be based upon contractual agreements, but it is good to have a target to start with. Potential Req-TIMEFRAMES-1 - The IETF technical publisher should have a goal of an average publication time of 4 weeks and 98% of all documents should be published within 8 weeks. Documents held up due to references or due to a protocol action should be excluded from this statistic. Potential Req-TIMEFRAMES-2 - The IETF technical publisher should have a goal of an average stable indentifier allocation time of 4 weeks and 98% of documents should have a stable identifier allocated within 8 weeks of approval. Documents held up due to references or due to a protocol action should be excluded from this statistic. Fulfiling these guidelines means that the publisher would have to publish before the appeals window. Note however that the appeals process is only one mechanism. A legal action challenging a document could occur months or even years after its publication. A new potential requirement is added: Potential Req-INDEX-6 - The IETF can indicate to the publisher that it should change the status of a document (e.g., to Historical) and this should be reflected in the index. Add a bullet to Section 5 (IETF Implications of Technical Publication Requirements) indicating that the IETF needs to define a process to decide and inform the technical publisher of status changes to published documents as the result of an appeal, legal action, or some other procedural action. _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 23 09:37:10 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F12og-0004wR-3s; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:37:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F12od-0004wE-QS for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:37:07 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23532 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:35:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from imr1.ericy.com ([198.24.6.9]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F12xz-0008UK-EV for techspec@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:46:48 -0500 Received: from eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se (eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.133.38]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k0NEav6u026748 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:36:57 -0600 Received: by eamrcnt760 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:36:57 -0600 Message-ID: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003801BE1154@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> From: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" To: techspec@ietf.org Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:36:53 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 Subject: [Techspec] Issue 5: Waiting on normative references X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Requirement on how to deal with extended waits on normative references Proposed Resolution: The requirements documented in section 3.11 are not changed. If the IETF decides to impose extra discipline and not send a document for publication until the references are available then that is not a technical publication issue. _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 23 09:37:20 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F12oq-0004xY-Dk; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:37:20 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F12op-0004xO-0Z for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:37:19 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23546 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:35:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from imr1.ericy.com ([198.24.6.9]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F12yA-0008Uw-L9 for techspec@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:46:59 -0500 Received: from eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se (eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.133.38]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k0NEb8dp026783 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:37:08 -0600 Received: by eamrcnt760 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:37:08 -0600 Message-ID: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003801BE1155@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> From: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" To: techspec@ietf.org Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:36:59 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 6d62ab47271805379d7172ee693a45db Subject: [Techspec] Issue 6: Handling of graphics X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org If the technical publisher only accepts ASCII, what about graphics? Proposed Resolution: Add a potential requirement along the lines of: Potential Req-DOCCONVERT-3 - The technical publisher should accept supplemental source files that may contain information such as: code, formal descriptions (XML, ASN.1, etc.) graphics, data files, etc. _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 23 09:37:20 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F12oq-0004xx-JX; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:37:20 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F12op-0004xT-Et for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:37:19 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23549 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:35:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from imr1.ericy.com ([198.24.6.9]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F12yB-0008Ux-2N for techspec@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:47:00 -0500 Received: from eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se (eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.133.38]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k0NEb8qD026784 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:37:08 -0600 Received: by eamrcnt760 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:37:08 -0600 Message-ID: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003801BE1156@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> From: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" To: techspec@ietf.org Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:37:06 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 30ac594df0e66ffa5a93eb4c48bcb014 Subject: [Techspec] Issue 7: Assigning STD and other identifiers X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Requirement on the assignment of other identifiers than RFC numbers. Proposed Resolution: Add in potential requirements along the lines of: Potential Req- PERMID-3 - The IETF technical publisher should assign additional permanent identifiers associated with various classes of documents as directed by the IETF. In section 5 (IETF Implications of Technical Publication Requirements) a bullet is added indicating that the classes of documents and the procedures for allocation of those numbers needs to be defined. _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 23 10:15:06 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F13PO-00007a-84; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:15:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F13PL-00007H-P0 for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:15:03 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26280 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:13:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F13Yh-0001SN-HX for techspec@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:24:45 -0500 Received: from netcore.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by netcore.fi (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k0NFEgHa012813; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:14:42 +0200 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id k0NFEgtb012810; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:14:42 +0200 Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:14:42 +0200 (EET) From: Pekka Savola To: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" Subject: Re: [Techspec] Issue 4: Publication time criteria In-Reply-To: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003801BE1153@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> Message-ID: References: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003801BE1153@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.88, clamav-milter version 0.87 on otso.netcore.fi X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on otso.netcore.fi X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 Cc: techspec@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS) wrote: > Potential Req-INDEX-6 - The IETF can indicate to the publisher that > it should change the status of a document (e.g., to Historical) and > this should be reflected in the index. As a matter of fact, this is a current requirement. > Add a bullet to Section 5 (IETF Implications of Technical > Publication Requirements) indicating that the IETF needs to define a > process to decide and inform the technical publisher of status > changes to published documents as the result of an appeal, legal > action, or some other procedural action. As you note, there may be some debate on what "indicate" means. Is a request by IESG or some other body enough? Does this require an RFC? I think in the past all these have been done using a text in an RFC. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 23 10:17:10 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F13RO-0000xt-Rc; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:17:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F13RN-0000xf-9i for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:17:09 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26423 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:15:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F13ai-0001Ya-Uy for techspec@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:26:50 -0500 Received: from netcore.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by netcore.fi (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k0NFGvHa012887; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:16:57 +0200 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id k0NFGvfs012884; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:16:57 +0200 Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:16:56 +0200 (EET) From: Pekka Savola To: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" Subject: Re: [Techspec] Issue 7: Assigning STD and other identifiers In-Reply-To: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003801BE1156@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> Message-ID: References: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003801BE1156@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.88, clamav-milter version 0.87 on otso.netcore.fi X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on otso.netcore.fi X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 Cc: techspec@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS) wrote: > Potential Req- PERMID-3 - The IETF technical publisher should assign > additional permanent identifiers associated with various classes of > documents as directed by the IETF. > > In section 5 (IETF Implications of Technical Publication > Requirements) a bullet is added indicating that the classes of > documents and the procedures for allocation of those numbers needs > to be defined. This is also a current requirement, at least to some degree -- by the virtue of putting something on BCP or Full Standard level. In the past, some informational documents were also apparently subclassified as "FYI xx". I don't know the history enough to know the process that was used to request those. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 23 11:09:22 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F14Ft-0006Th-VK; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 11:09:21 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F14Fs-0006TZ-JH for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 11:09:20 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29911 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 11:07:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F14PE-0003KH-UC for techspec@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 11:19:02 -0500 Received: from [10.20.30.249] (dsl2-63-249-108-169.cruzio.com [63.249.108.169]) (authenticated bits=0) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id k0NG95IF093512; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:09:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003801BE1153@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> References: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003801BE1153@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:08:46 -0800 To: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" , techspec@ietf.org From: Paul Hoffman Subject: Re: [Techspec] Issue 4: Publication time criteria Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 Cc: X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org At 8:36 AM -0600 1/23/06, Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS) wrote: >Potential Req-TIMEFRAMES-1 - The IETF technical publisher should >have a goal of an average publication time of 4 weeks and 98% of all >documents should be published within 8 weeks. Documents held up due >to references or due to a protocol action should be excluded from >this statistic. > >Potential Req-TIMEFRAMES-2 - The IETF technical publisher should >have a goal of an average stable indentifier allocation time of 4 >weeks and 98% of documents should have a stable identifier allocated >within 8 weeks of approval. Documents held up due to references or >due to a protocol action should be excluded from this statistic. Maybe change "time of 4 weeks" to "time of up to 4 weeks" in both edits. Without such a change, if the publisher is faster than the requirement, they will be forced to slow down, probably with NOOP loops. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 23 12:01:54 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F154k-0001y8-G7; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:01:54 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F154j-0001y3-A4 for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:01:53 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA02511 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:00:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.202.64]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F15E6-0004pj-AB for techspec@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:11:35 -0500 Received: from s73602 (unknown[65.104.224.98]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with SMTP id <2006012317014101300ftrn7e>; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:01:41 +0000 Message-ID: <011b01c6203e$8588bcf0$a9087c0a@china.huawei.com> From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: References: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003801BE1156@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> Subject: Re: [Techspec] Issue 7: Assigning STD and other identifiers Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 11:00:31 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org I know the current situation splits the responsibility for maintaining STD and BCP indexes between IETF and the technical publisher, but is there any reason why we would choose to continue with the split responsibility, if we were starting from scratch? Spencer > Requirement on the assignment of other identifiers than RFC numbers. > > Proposed Resolution: Add in potential requirements along the lines of: > > Potential Req- PERMID-3 - The IETF technical publisher should assign > additional permanent identifiers associated with various classes of > documents as directed by the IETF. > > In section 5 (IETF Implications of Technical Publication Requirements) a > bullet is added indicating that the classes of documents and the > procedures for allocation of those numbers needs to be defined. _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 24 06:12:34 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F1M6D-0005cx-U2; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 06:12:33 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F1M6C-0005cs-9q for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 06:12:32 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA01043 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 06:11:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtagate3.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.136]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F1MFi-0005CA-H0 for techspec@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 06:22:24 -0500 Received: from d06nrmr1307.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06nrmr1307.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.38.129]) by mtagate3.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k0OAnhVo196446 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:12:20 GMT Received: from d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.212]) by d06nrmr1307.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VERS6.8) with ESMTP id k0OAL9lF111496 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:21:10 GMT Received: from d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k0OAL8hK012180 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:21:08 GMT Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k0OAL8ha012176; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:21:08 GMT Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-145-250-158.de.ibm.com [9.145.250.158]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA76250; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:21:06 +0100 Message-ID: <43D5FF92.8010007@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:21:06 +0100 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pekka Savola Subject: Re: [Techspec] Issue 4: Publication time criteria References: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003801BE1153@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: techspec@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Pekka Savola wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS) wrote: > >> Potential Req-INDEX-6 - The IETF can indicate to the publisher that it >> should change the status of a document (e.g., to Historical) and this >> should be reflected in the index. > > > As a matter of fact, this is a current requirement. > >> Add a bullet to Section 5 (IETF Implications of Technical Publication >> Requirements) indicating that the IETF needs to define a process to >> decide and inform the technical publisher of status changes to >> published documents as the result of an appeal, legal action, or some >> other procedural action. > > > As you note, there may be some debate on what "indicate" means. Is a > request by IESG or some other body enough? Does this require an RFC? I > think in the past all these have been done using a text in an RFC. I believe that formal decisions by the IESG are enough for a status change, although in many cases a change (e.g. to Historic) is the result of the IESG approving a new document. At least in theory, a PS can become a DS or a DS can become a Standard without a new RFC. I don't think we should *require* a new document - that would be pure bureaucracy. Brian _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 24 07:22:08 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F1NBY-0007YK-AO; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 07:22:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F1NBX-0007YD-DZ for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 07:22:07 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA06091 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 07:20:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net ([63.240.77.83]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F1NL4-0007kD-JX for techspec@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 07:31:59 -0500 Received: from s73602 (c-24-1-104-165.hsd1.tx.comcast.net[24.1.104.165]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with SMTP id <2006012412215701300124mme>; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:21:57 +0000 Message-ID: <062d01c620e0$98993b60$a9087c0a@china.huawei.com> From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: References: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003801BE1156@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <011b01c6203e$8588bcf0$a9087c0a@china.huawei.com> <43D6003B.6010009@zurich.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [Techspec] Issue 7: Assigning STD and other identifiers Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 06:20:42 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org > Spencer Dawkins wrote: >> I know the current situation splits the responsibility for maintaining >> STD and BCP indexes between IETF and the technical publisher, but is >> there any reason why we would choose to continue with the split >> responsibility, if we were starting from scratch? > > That, I think, is the point of "as directed by the IETF." It makes it > clear where the policy comes from. > > Brian Yeah, I understand the policy part. I'm asking why we want to continue to have these indexes on a site that's not ietf.org. I don't know if we will ever do anything with ISDs or SRDs (or any other metadata grouping), but if this ever happens, it seems like we'll have a lot more activity with STD-like indexes than we've had thus far. If the technical publisher was responsible for making sure that our specifications were available to the community, and IETF was responsible for making sure that the specifications were correctly classified and grouped, that would make sense to me. That's not the only way that makes sense, I'm sure. I'm just trying to understand what the goal of having the technical publisher maintain these indexes is. Thanks, Spencer _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 24 07:30:01 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F1NJB-00033q-MY; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 07:30:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F1NJA-00033e-Ck for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 07:30:00 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA07006 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 07:28:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtagate1.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.150]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F1NSg-00087j-Ag for techspec@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 07:39:52 -0500 Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate1.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k0OB6Inb200370 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:29:44 GMT Received: from d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.229]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VERS6.8) with ESMTP id k0OAO5rA177768 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:24:05 +0100 Received: from d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k0OAO5S6030860 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:24:05 +0100 Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k0OAO4Qb030818; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:24:04 +0100 Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-145-250-158.de.ibm.com [9.145.250.158]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA73522; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:24:03 +0100 Message-ID: <43D6003B.6010009@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:23:55 +0100 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Spencer Dawkins Subject: Re: [Techspec] Issue 7: Assigning STD and other identifiers References: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003801BE1156@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <011b01c6203e$8588bcf0$a9087c0a@china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <011b01c6203e$8588bcf0$a9087c0a@china.huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: techspec@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Spencer Dawkins wrote: > I know the current situation splits the responsibility for maintaining > STD and BCP indexes between IETF and the technical publisher, but is > there any reason why we would choose to continue with the split > responsibility, if we were starting from scratch? That, I think, is the point of "as directed by the IETF." It makes it clear where the policy comes from. Brian > > Spencer > > >> Requirement on the assignment of other identifiers than RFC numbers. >> >> Proposed Resolution: Add in potential requirements along the lines of: >> >> Potential Req- PERMID-3 - The IETF technical publisher should assign >> additional permanent identifiers associated with various classes of >> documents as directed by the IETF. >> >> In section 5 (IETF Implications of Technical Publication Requirements) >> a bullet is added indicating that the classes of documents and the >> procedures for allocation of those numbers needs to be defined. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Techspec mailing list > Techspec@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec > _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 24 08:59:32 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F1Oho-0006Pe-1y; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:59:32 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F1Ohn-0006PK-Ew for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:59:31 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA13616 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:58:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtagate4.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.153]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F1OrL-00034I-15 for techspec@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:09:24 -0500 Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate4.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k0ODabtD038476 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 13:59:19 GMT Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.228]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VERS6.8) with ESMTP id k0ODVnrA114898 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 14:31:49 +0100 Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k0ODVmLX019719 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 14:31:48 +0100 Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k0ODVmqA019712; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 14:31:48 +0100 Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-145-250-158.de.ibm.com [9.145.250.158]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA74708; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 14:31:47 +0100 Message-ID: <43D62C42.1050601@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 14:31:46 +0100 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Spencer Dawkins Subject: Re: [Techspec] Issue 7: Assigning STD and other identifiers References: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003801BE1156@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <011b01c6203e$8588bcf0$a9087c0a@china.huawei.com> <43D6003B.6010009@zurich.ibm.com> <062d01c620e0$98993b60$a9087c0a@china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <062d01c620e0$98993b60$a9087c0a@china.huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: techspec@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Spencer Dawkins wrote: >> Spencer Dawkins wrote: >> >>> I know the current situation splits the responsibility for >>> maintaining STD and BCP indexes between IETF and the technical >>> publisher, but is there any reason why we would choose to continue >>> with the split responsibility, if we were starting from scratch? >> >> >> That, I think, is the point of "as directed by the IETF." It makes it >> clear where the policy comes from. >> >> Brian > > > Yeah, I understand the policy part. I'm asking why we want to continue > to have these indexes on a site that's not ietf.org. > > I don't know if we will ever do anything with ISDs or SRDs (or any other > metadata grouping), but if this ever happens, it seems like we'll have a > lot more activity with STD-like indexes than we've had thus far. If the > technical publisher was responsible for making sure that our > specifications were available to the community, and IETF was responsible > for making sure that the specifications were correctly classified and > grouped, that would make sense to me. That's not the only way that makes > sense, I'm sure. > > I'm just trying to understand what the goal of having the technical > publisher maintain these indexes is. I think that's a separate question. As far as techspec is concerned, we want the publisher to do what the IETF wants. If the IETF decides to maintain these indexes in-house, the direction from the IETF to the publisher will become "please do nothing." Thus, I'm happy with the current wording. Brian _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jan 26 19:20:00 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F2HLM-0003Y2-Q9; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:20:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F2HLK-0003Xp-Os for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:19:58 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA20367 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:18:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from sccrmhc14.comcast.net ([63.240.77.84]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F2HVO-0008BV-AA for techspec@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:30:22 -0500 Received: from s73602 (unknown[65.104.224.98]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc14) with SMTP id <2006012700194401400drpfie>; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 00:19:44 +0000 Message-ID: <026301c622d7$3478e8d0$a9087c0a@china.huawei.com> From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:17:24 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Techspec] Questions on draft-mankin-techspec-pubreq-03 X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org This really looks good. I have a few short questions: - In 3.2 Discussion - does the technical publisher have to take steps to make sure that a draft remains available for more than 6 months? - Current Req-REFVAL-2 - Is the IETF responsible for forwarding documents with resolved references, or is the technical publisher supposed to catch these? (I thought IESG was trying to keep from approving documents with unapproved normative references, for example) - In 3.6, why is technical publisher involved with IANA? (Is there an interface between technical publisher and IANA that we don't see from the IETF?) - In 3.8 - do we care if there are identifiers that get allocated but don't get used (document is withdrawn, or something similar)? - In 3.12, we say "used sparingly" for expedited handling, but we do pick numbers for metrics elsewhere. Would it make sense to name a percentage of documents that may be expedited in normal operation? - In 3.17, is full-text search required? - In 3.19 - I note that we are spending time looking at lists of "the oldest documents in specific status" elsewhere - include exception reporting as a requirement? Thanks! As I say, it's looking good. Spencer _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jan 27 05:37:49 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F2QzF-0004Dx-GC; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 05:37:49 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F2QzF-0004Ds-4O for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 05:37:49 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA24636 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 05:36:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from imr1.ericy.com ([198.24.6.9]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F2R9M-0000zG-PS for techspec@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 05:48:18 -0500 Received: from eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se (eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.133.38]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k0RAbUCE009003; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 04:37:30 -0600 Received: by eamrcnt760 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 04:37:30 -0600 Message-ID: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003801CB1D2B@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> From: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" To: Spencer Dawkins , techspec@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Techspec] Questions on draft-mankin-techspec-pubreq-03 Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 04:37:25 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bdc523f9a54890b8a30dd6fd53d5d024 Cc: X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org See my opinions below: Stephen > -----Original Message----- > From: techspec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:techspec-bounces@ietf.org]On > Behalf Of Spencer Dawkins > Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 6:17 PM > To: techspec@ietf.org > Subject: [Techspec] Questions on draft-mankin-techspec-pubreq-03 > > > This really looks good. I have a few short questions: > > - In 3.2 Discussion - does the technical publisher have to > take steps to > make sure that a draft remains available for more than 6 months? SH: I don't think anything is needed from the technical publisher. This is primarily used by other SDOs where the outside world doesn't have access to the draft documents until actually published. It isn't intended to be a version you would reference, so I don't think there is a need to make sure the last draft remains available. > > - Current Req-REFVAL-2 - Is the IETF responsible for > forwarding documents > with resolved references, or is the technical publisher > supposed to catch > these? (I thought IESG was trying to keep from approving > documents with > unapproved normative references, for example) SH: This was meant to be more than a check on IETF references. While the IESG can choose to hold back docs with in progress IETF references, we probably don't want them to spend time that all the listed references are actually available. So this is still needed even if the IESG decides to hold docs up awaiting normative IETF references. > > - In 3.6, why is technical publisher involved with IANA? (Is there an > interface between technical publisher and IANA that we don't > see from the > IETF?) SH: In the current process, IANA works on the IANA considerations and then the technical publisher plugs those values into the document. That is what this was intended to represent. So it is one additional source of change that occurs after approval of the document. > > - In 3.8 - do we care if there are identifiers that get > allocated but don't > get used (document is withdrawn, or something similar)? SH: It doesn't seem to be a problem to me to have gaps. The identifiers need to be unique and permanent. In my opinion, having them semantically meaningful would be more important than ensuring no numbering gaps. > > - In 3.12, we say "used sparingly" for expedited handling, > but we do pick > numbers for metrics elsewhere. Would it make sense to name a > percentage of > documents that may be expedited in normal operation? SH: Glad to put in a number, does anybody want to volunteer a number? How about 1%? I was hoping that if we can get the publication time down, we could remove this requirement all together. > > - In 3.17, is full-text search required? SH: That seems to be a detail that can be worked out later, but I think full text search would be useful. > > - In 3.19 - I note that we are spending time looking at lists > of "the oldest > documents in specific status" elsewhere - include exception > reporting as a > requirement? SH: This section is primarily intended for metrics for measuring performance. I think that what you want is covered under section 3.11 (Potential Req-STATUSTRK-3 - The IETF technical publisher should provide external visibility of not only the fact that a document is in an extended waiting period, but also the token-holder and circumstances of the wait. ) > > Thanks! As I say, it's looking good. > > Spencer > > > > _______________________________________________ > Techspec mailing list > Techspec@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec > _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jan 27 05:43:07 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F2R4M-0005Qa-Vs; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 05:43:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F2R4L-0005QL-Ja for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 05:43:05 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA24994 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 05:41:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from imr1.ericy.com ([198.24.6.9]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F2REU-0001AD-IY for techspec@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 05:53:34 -0500 Received: from eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se (eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.133.38]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k0RAguSv009549; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 04:42:56 -0600 Received: by eamrcnt760 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 04:42:56 -0600 Message-ID: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003801CB1D2F@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> From: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" To: Paul Hoffman , techspec@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Techspec] Issue 4: Publication time criteria Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 04:42:50 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f Cc: X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org > > > >Potential Req-TIMEFRAMES-2 - The IETF technical publisher should > >have a goal of an average stable indentifier allocation time of 4 > >weeks and 98% of documents should have a stable identifier allocated > >within 8 weeks of approval. Documents held up due to references or > >due to a protocol action should be excluded from this statistic. > > Maybe change "time of 4 weeks" to "time of up to 4 weeks" in both > edits. Without such a change, if the publisher is faster than the > requirement, they will be forced to slow down, probably with NOOP > loops. ok, I'll figure out the wording but indicate it is an upper bound. > > --Paul Hoffman, Director > --VPN Consortium > _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jan 27 05:45:24 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F2R6a-0006OX-4D; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 05:45:24 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F2R6Y-0006Mj-II for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 05:45:22 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA25170 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 05:43:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from imr1.ericy.com ([198.24.6.9]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F2RGf-0001Ev-Rb for techspec@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 05:55:51 -0500 Received: from eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se (eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.133.38]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k0RAjBX7009806; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 04:45:11 -0600 Received: by eamrcnt760 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 04:45:11 -0600 Message-ID: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003801CB1D30@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> From: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" To: Pekka Savola Subject: RE: [Techspec] Issue 7: Assigning STD and other identifiers Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 04:45:02 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17 Cc: techspec@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas@netcore.fi] > Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 9:17 AM > To: Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS) > Cc: techspec@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Techspec] Issue 7: Assigning STD and other identifiers > > > On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS) wrote: > > Potential Req- PERMID-3 - The IETF technical publisher > should assign > > additional permanent identifiers associated with various classes of > > documents as directed by the IETF. > > > > In section 5 (IETF Implications of Technical Publication > > Requirements) a bullet is added indicating that the classes of > > documents and the procedures for allocation of those numbers needs > > to be defined. > > This is also a current requirement, at least to some degree -- by the > virtue of putting something on BCP or Full Standard level. In the > past, some informational documents were also apparently subclassified > as "FYI xx". I don't know the history enough to know the > process that > was used to request those. SH: Thanks, I'll change it to a current requirement instead of a potential requirement. > > -- > Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the > Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." > Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings > _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jan 27 05:47:01 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F2R89-0007Ws-Ox; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 05:47:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F2R88-0007WO-Nb for techspec@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 05:47:00 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA25313 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 05:45:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from imr1.ericy.com ([198.24.6.9]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F2RIH-0001J8-GA for techspec@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 05:57:29 -0500 Received: from eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se (eamrcnt760.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.133.38]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k0RAkpkq010042; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 04:46:51 -0600 Received: by eamrcnt760 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 04:46:51 -0600 Message-ID: <4DCBC973AF0D6E4FAF9CD998CE1C003801CB1D31@eusrcmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> From: "Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)" To: Pekka Savola Subject: RE: [Techspec] Issue 4: Publication time criteria Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 04:46:46 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17 Cc: techspec@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas@netcore.fi] > Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 9:15 AM > To: Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS) > Cc: techspec@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Techspec] Issue 4: Publication time criteria > > > On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS) wrote: > > Potential Req-INDEX-6 - The IETF can indicate to the publisher that > > it should change the status of a document (e.g., to Historical) and > > this should be reflected in the index. > > As a matter of fact, this is a current requirement. > > > Add a bullet to Section 5 (IETF Implications of Technical > > Publication Requirements) indicating that the IETF needs to > define a > > process to decide and inform the technical publisher of status > > changes to published documents as the result of an appeal, legal > > action, or some other procedural action. > > As you note, there may be some debate on what "indicate" means. Is a > request by IESG or some other body enough? Does this require an RFC? > I think in the past all these have been done using a text in an RFC. SH: Thanks, I'll change it to a current requirement instead of a potential requirement. I guess the permissible mechanisms for indication need documented within the IETF. > > -- > Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the > Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." > Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings > _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec