Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations-08.txt>(Initial Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) AuthenticationScheme Registrations) to Informational RFC

From: t.p. <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 09:54:05 +0100

I see that we have been granted a fortnight to review eight,
inter-related, httpbis I-Ds, comprising over 300 pages, ending in the
course of IETF88 and in the run-up to a meeting when everyone comes out
of aestivation and the mailing lists are inundated.

Seems like a DoS attack to me.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "The IESG" <[email-masked]>
To: "IETF-Announce" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 2:25 PM
Subject: Last Call:
<draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations-08.txt>(Initial Hypertext
Transfer Protocol (HTTP) AuthenticationScheme Registrations) to
Informational RFC

>
> The IESG has received a request from the Hypertext Transfer Protocol
Bis
> WG (httpbis) to consider the following document:
> - 'Initial Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Authentication Scheme
>    Registrations'
>   <draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations-08.txt> as
Informational
> RFC
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> [email-masked] mailing lists by 2013-11-04. Exceptionally, comments may
be
> sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> Abstract
>
>
>    This document registers Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)
>    authentication schemes which have been defined in standards-track
>    RFCs before the IANA HTTP Authentication Scheme Registry was
>    established.
>
>
> Note that this document is part of a set, which should be reviewed
together:
>
> * draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging
> * draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics
> * draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional
> * draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range
> * draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache
> * draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth
> * draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations
> * draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations
>
> The file can be obtained via
>
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrati
ons/
>
> Once IESG evaluation begins, IESG discussion can be tracked via
>
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrati
ons/ballot/
>
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:16:59 +0100

The LC review will be very weak in terms of quality if we often do this
kind of calls (it seems not often done), but I think if reviewers that want
to review these drafts, send comments saying we need more time for such LC,
there is always the AD responsibility to make more time available if there
were people to do the job. Delaying I-Ds also is not a good process quality
while we see no much volunteering reviews from the community (less than 5
reviews per I-D). So do you mean you will want to review or you mean that
others MAY want to review but they will leave it, so this LC is attacking.

AB

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 9:54 AM, t.p. <[email-masked]> wrote:

> ons/<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations/>
> >
> ons/ballot/<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations/ballot/>
> >

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 09:59:19 -0700

> of aestivation and the mailing lists are inundated.

It's not like this work hasn't been in progress for about a decade
already.  Though I do recall discussing a 4 week LC period at the last
meeting.  Barry?

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 13:31:30 +0200

> already.  Though I do recall discussing a 4 week LC period at the last

My experience is that longer last call periods usually do not generate 
more review, but just later review.

That being said, the timing indeed isn't optimal. On the other hand, it 
would be *really* good if we actually could discuss LC issues while in 
Vancouver.

So print the drafts (from the the HTML versions at 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/#wg-httpbis>), and have a look at them 
on your trip to Vancouver...

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 11:36:04 -0400

Julian says...
> My experience is that longer last call periods usually do not generate more
> review, but just later review.

Indeed.  I find that almost all the time, last call reviews and
comments come in either in the first few days of the last call, or in
the last few days (or, unfortunately, a day or two after it's over).
It's uncommon for reviews to flow in throughout the period, and
four-week last calls mostly wind up with two weeks of quiet in the
middle.

> would be *really* good if we actually could discuss LC issues while in

And that is the reason we did the last call the way we did, accepting
that the suboptimal timing would give way to better use of time at the
meeting.

Clearly, important comments won't be ignored because they're late.
But, everyone, please do your best to get your comments in by the IETF
meeting, so we can discuss them in the httpbis sessions.

Barry

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 13:11:36 +0100

On 2013-10-25 10:54, t.p. wrote:
> ...

Of which only 250 are non-boilerplate, non-toc, non-changelogs...

Best regards, Julian