1 / 7

Notes on 8BITMIME pre-evalution by IESG IETF 76 – Hiroshima November, 2009

Notes on 8BITMIME pre-evalution by IESG IETF 76 – Hiroshima November, 2009. Alexey Melnikov alexey.melnikov@isode.com. Evaluation. IESG was confused by the two step review process, as it was never tried before Some Ads didn’t realize during YAM chartering how the process is supposed to work

reece
Download Presentation

Notes on 8BITMIME pre-evalution by IESG IETF 76 – Hiroshima November, 2009

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Notes on 8BITMIME pre-evalution by IESGIETF 76 – HiroshimaNovember, 2009 Alexey Melnikov alexey.melnikov@isode.com

  2. Evaluation • IESG was confused by the two step review process, as it was never tried before • Some Ads didn’t realize during YAM chartering how the process is supposed to work • General feeling within IESG that binding commitment on future IESG members is not a good thing, because this would prevent future ADs from doing their review job as described in AD job definition • Most ADs were happy to publicly express their opinion on the document, noting that IETF LC can bring new issues and cause them to change their minds

  3. Specific comments • The pre-evaluation document itself was useful • The document wasn’t explicit about things that were discussed in the WG but resulted in no change • This would help IESG to think about difficult issues • Some other minor changes to the format were suggested

  4. Specific comments • A sentiment was expressed that testing the process on something as simple as 8BITMIME is not going to prove/uncover anything • IESG is asking the WG to try the process on a moderately complex document • Progressing extensions before base document (also in scope for the WG) seems wrong

  5. Other related IESG discussions • IESG got distracted by discussing what can possibly be wrong with YAM documents (e.g. inadequate Security Considerations)

  6. Internal IESG processes • Existing web tools at IESG disposal were not adequate • IESG were not happy with voting on the pre-evaluation document as if it was the document being moved to Full • Because this is confusing to IESG • IESG “Management Items” will be used in the future • This is an internal IESG issue

  7. My take on the results • Two step pre-evaluation might be more costly to both the WG and the IESG than a one step “move the document to Full Standard” process • The WG might be losing sight of the end goal • We need to evaluate which process is more costly • Suggestion: try progressing 2 documents, one using 2 step process and 1 using the usual 1 step process

More Related