WG Last Call on IETF Problem Statement (small proposal to
exp and text in sections 2.2 and 2.3)
Alistair.Urie at alcatel.com
Alistair.Urie at alcatel.com
Thu Sep 18 12:23:06 CEST 2003
Elwyn,
For the dependency issue I am sorry but I carn't find any mention of this
issue in section 2.4 (which is more about the "post-WG approval process"
while I was more concerned about new work still ongoing within a WG) but
agree that this paragraph of 2.1 could be read to cover this issue proved
we agree that recognising this important issue of dependencies between WG
and between IETF and other SDOs is consideration when looking at the
problem of IETF's core mission. This is more than I was looking for (I was
only considering this to be a process issue and hence for 2.2)
I still think the minor change I propose to 2.2 would both better cover
this issue and send a clear signal to other SDOs that IETF is going to work
to improve its processes handling this dependency issue
For the undated reference issue I note that a similar idea is under
discussion in the solution list (the SSS idea) and I think you will be
surprised to find out how simple changes like this could help us break big
complex issues into smaller pieces. Many other SDOs use this and it works.
Once again. Why not add this small change proposal?
See also my comments below marked AUnew>>
- Alistair
P.S. Maybe the fact that small, targetted, change proposals like this can
not easily be included at this stage in the process is also a problem worth
looking at ;-)
"Elwyn Davies"
<elwynd at nortelne To: Alistair AU URIE/FR/ALCATEL at ALCATEL, avri <avri at psg.com>, Melinda Shore
tworks.com> <mshore at cisco.com>
cc: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
17/09/2003 17:00 Subject: RE: WG Last Call on IETF Problem Statement (small proposal to exp and text in
sections 2.2 and 2.3)
Hi.
Thanks for the comments. I think the points you make are indeed valid and
looking back through the mailing list, I believe that they had mostly been
made previously. I also believe that they are essentially covered by the
existing text, and so I would concur with Dave Crocker that it would be
gilding the lily to make more modifications at this stage.
Regards,
Elwyn
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alistair.Urie at alcatel.com [mailto:Alistair.Urie at alcatel.com]
> Sent: 15 September 2003 17:16
> To: avri; Melinda Shore; problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: WG Last Call on IETF Problem Statement (small
> proposal to expand text in sections 2.2 and 2.3)
>
>
>
> Although I note that a few people have already said we should
> "just ship
> it", may I please make two, small, last minute, proposals to
> add to this
> draft covering a pair of issues concerning problems effecting
> inter-relationships between WGs and between IETF and other
> bodies?
<<snip>>
> 1) Need for IETF to improve communications between WGs and
> between IETF and
> outside organisation when working on common issues
>
<<snip>>
> AU - add here>> o Difficulty in identify dependencies and
> respecting
> milestones between WG outputs and work planning and the work
> of other WGs
> and/or other standards developing bodies outside IETF which are
> collaborating with WGs on common issues
I think the issue for WGs is adequately covered by the equivalent point in
2.4.
AUnew>>> Sorry but carn't see anything under 2.4 on collaborations.
Communications with SDOs is covered in 2.1. Arguably the equivalent point
to the one in 2.4 for WGs could be made for other SDOs.
AUnew>> But I am not discussing "communications" I am concerned about
mutual agreements that IETF leads on certain topics and that we will
deliver on our promises
>
> o Project entry, goal setting, and tracking processes are
> all either
> missing or implemented less effectively than the norm for
> commercial organizations in related activities.
>
> AU - replace with>>
> o Project entry, goal setting, dependency identification
> and tracking
> processes are all either missing or implemented less
> effectively than
> the norm for commercial organizations in related activities."
I think this is also covered by the point in 2.4.
>
> 2) - Lack of "undated" references covering IETF outputs
>
<<snip>>
> To cover this issue I propose we add a new dot point to the
> list in section
> 2.3.
>
> Specific proposed text is:
>
<<snip>>
> AU - add text>>o The IETF does not have an effective means
> for WGs and
> outside standards bodies to refer to "work in progress" on
> new subjects and
> RFC revisions by means of "undated" references and/or other
> methods that
> allow work to progress independently on individual components
> of a complex
> problem."
This is a useful point but I am not sure that it adds significantly to
point about complex problems.
In terms of solutions this needs to be addressed and various people have
already been airing possibilities.
Regards,
Elwyn.
>
> yours,
>
> Alistair URIE
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> avri <avri at psg.com>
>
>
> Sent by:
> To: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
>
> problem-statement-bounces at al
> cc: Melinda Shore <mshore at cisco.com>
>
> vestrand.no
> Subject: WG Last Call on IETF Problem Statement
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 31/08/2003 04:51
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This note marks the beginning of the WG Last call for:
>
>
> > Title : IETF Problem Statement
> > Author(s) : E. Davies
> > Filename :
> draft-ietf-problem-issue-statement-03.txt
> > Pages : 24
> > Date : 2003-8-26
> >
>
>
> The document can be found at:
>
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-problem-issue-s
tatement-
03.txt
Because of the US holiday on Monday , 1- Sept, the last call will
extend from now, 31 August until 16 September (any time zone).
Please send your comments to the WG mailing list
problem-statement at alvestrand.no
thanks
a.
Avri Doria
co-chair
More information about the Problem-statement
mailing list