Subject: Re: text suggested by ADs

From: [email-masked] (Kai Henningsen)
Date: 08 May 2005 20:06:00 +0200

[email-masked] (Hallam-Baker, Phillip)  wrote on 28.04.05 in <[email-masked]>:

> In every other forum I simply make up the SRV prefixes myself and stick
> them in the draft. The chance of accidental collision is insignificant.
> There are far more Windows applications than Internet communication
> protocols yet people seem to be able to cope with a 3 letter filetype
> extension astonishingly well.

Bad example. Very bad example. The number of collisions with 3 letter  
filetypes is high enough that I'll call "copes well" flat out false.

MfG Kai

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson \(LU/EAB\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 13:43:13 +0200

> >>>>>> "Spencer" == Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]> writes:
> >
> >    Spencer> - the mailing lists are often not set up to allow 
> >    Spencer> posting by non-members
> >
> > That's a violation of policy.  Please see the IESG statement on spam
> > policy; someone needs to be approving non-member postings for IETF
> > working group lists.
> 
> "allow posting without manual intervention" - the mailing lists I've 
> administered for IETF had two settings, "allow posting by 
> non-members" and "hold postings by non-members for approval".
> 
> What I was trying to say was, this is probably sufficient for first 
> feedback, but probably not sufficient for actually discussing a 
> DISCUSS comment.

True, but as the mailing list administrator you can choose to add
senders to the "accepts-filter" when their first posting is approved,
that should solve the problem, right?

/L-E

---

From: "John Loughney" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 21:37:12 +0200

Bill,

When is a DISCUSS not a discuss? When it is a "You have to fix this and I'm holding a DISCUSS until it's fixed." I've seen variations on there as a draft editor and it's not always clear. In the past, this has been an issue with ADs who have not engaged the WG. It helps to have an explanation of the DISCUSS.

John

====================
The good thing about mobile email is that t9 forces you to be brief.

--- original message ---
Subject:	Re: text suggested by ADs
Sender:	Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
Date:		05/08/2005 7:51 pm

On 5/7/05, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:
>    If someone has the authority to block the long-term work of a group of IETF
> participants, they have an *obligation* to take their concerns directly to
> those participants and engage in a direct process to resolve it.

Dave,

  From my point of view, there are two assumptions that the IESG makes
in this situation:

1) Since the responsible AD (or PROTO shepherd) is more familiar with
the working group / document / other work / etc, they will be able to
more effectively communicate the concerns.
2) The AD that registered the DISCUSS is always willing to actually
have a discussion directly with the WG or authors if necessary.

However, I think that the community tends to see instead:

1) The discussing AD is hiding behind a shield
2) The discussing AD isn't willing to communicate with the WG

I've certainly seen responses to discusses that I've filed come back
as "Well, I don't think this is reasonable, but I've made this change
to satisfy the IESG," even though I would have been willing to have
the discussion and yield to the WG's/authors' opinion.

I do think that #1 is solving a real problem - I'm pretty sure that
WGs/authors would rather get one message summarizing all of the IESG's
issues rather than 10 messages from different individuals that might
have overlapping issues, etc.  However, if it's perpetuating the myth
that ADs aren't willing to talk to the WGs/authors, we need to do
*something* about it.

  Bill

---

From: "John Loughney" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 21:38:49 +0200

Exactly. If the ad is not a member of the mailing list and the wg chair blocks mails from an ad, them the wg has bigger problems than DISCUSSes on drafts.

John

====================

--- original message ---
Subject:	RE: text suggested by ADs
Sender:	"Lars-Erik Jonsson \(LU/EAB\)" <[email-masked]>
Date:		05/09/2005 1:43 pm

/L-E