Subject: [apps-discuss] New appsawg documents

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 20:37:05 -0400

As noted in the minutes from IETF 81:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/minutes/appsawg.txt
... the Applications Area Working Group is picking up seven new
documents.  After some post-IETF travel and catch-up, it's time for
your friendly neighbourhood chairs to start things moving on those
documents, and we've divided up the shepherding work.

Let's start with the list of documents, and a call for any objections:
Please respond to this message by this Friday, 2 September, if you
object to having the working group take on any of these documents:
 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-holsten-about-uri-scheme
 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zyp-json-schema
 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kucherawy-mta-malformed
 http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kucherawy-rfc3462bis
 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-melnikov-mime-default-charset
 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saintandre-xdash
 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-freed-media-type-regs

Meanwhile, the first three documents we'd like to focus on are these
(with the document's shepherd in parentheses):
 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-holsten-about-uri-scheme (Jiankang)
 http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kucherawy-rfc3462bis (Barry)
 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saintandre-xdash (Alexey)

I am currently pre-approving the following document names, so the
document editors can submit new versions under the working group's
auspices.  The document shepherds will soon be contacting the current
authors to discuss document editing within the working group -- note
that working group document editors will not necessarily be the same
as the original document authors, though we'll usually try to keep
continuity.

draft-holsten-about-uri-scheme
     will become
draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme

draft-kucherawy-rfc3462bis
     will become
draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis

draft-saintandre-xdash
     will become
draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash

Once the shepherds have gotten in touch with the document editors, the
editors should incorporate whatever comments are outstanding, and
submit new working-group versions.  We'll then start discussing them
in earnest, and set up milestones for when we expect to complete them.

Barry, appsawg chair

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:50:07 +0300

>   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-holsten-about-uri-scheme (Jiankang)

Yes, I may seem stubborn and obstinate (and I probably am :-)), but 
*please* do consider my comments from [1] if this document is approved 
as AppsAWG doc.  We, as a WG, should produce RFCs of high quality, and, 
with all due respect to the document's authors, the current I-D doesn't 
seem to be so.

Thanks,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev

[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg03120.html

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 10:15:28 -0400

> Yes, I may seem stubborn and obstinate (and I probably am :-)), but *please*
> do consider my comments from [1] if this document is approved as AppsAWG
> doc.  We, as a WG, should produce RFCs of high quality, and, with all due
> respect to the document's authors, the current I-D doesn't seem to be so.
...
> [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg03120.html

Be assured that your input is already being considered.

Barry

---

From: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 19:04:04 +0200

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Barry Leiba" <[email-masked]>
To: "Apps Discuss" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 2:37 AM
> object to having the working group take on any of these documents:

Why?

At least two of these seem to be progressing nicely without any
adoption by appsawg, so adopting them seems to be a way of making
work.

Do the authors want them adopted (I have seen no requests)?

If not, who does?

Tom Petch

> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:10:34 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of t.petch
> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 10:04 AM
> To: Barry Leiba; Apps Discuss
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] New appsawg documents
> 
> Why?
> 

As one of said authors, I do.  There are several reasons, not the least of which are the facts that our ADs are trying to keep AD-sponsored drafts to a minimum, incorporation into the WG is painless and reduces LC durations, and the documents (at least my two) are getting good support there.

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 14:13:03 -0400

> Do the authors want them adopted (I have seen no requests)?

The Area Directors, who would otherwise have to decide whether to
sponsor them.  Remember that Standards Track documents have to go
through the IESG, and someone has to manage the process.  In part,
that's why appsawg exists.

Barry

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:15:44 -0600

<hat type='AD'/>

> that's why appsawg exists.

It's also easier for us to declare consensus on WG documents than on
individual drafts.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 14:17:41 -0400

>> adoption by appsawg, so adopting them seems to be a way of making

I'll add that it's the goal of AppsAWG to help the process, not to
make extra work and hinder things.  Without it, the document editors
have to make sure the document gets sufficient review, convince an
Area Director to sponsor it, and deal with a four-week IETF last call.
 With it, the working group is here to review the document, and the
document shepherd (one of the chairs or someone we assign) will assess
the quality of review, we already have approval from the Area
Directors to go ahead, and there's a two-week last call when we send
it up.

If the WG is putting undue extra process in the way, we're doing
something wrong, and that's something we should discuss.  Let's start
by seeing how smoothly a few more documents go (the first two went
well, I think).

Barry

---

From: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 18:08:39 +0200

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Barry Leiba" <[email-masked]>
To: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Apps Discuss" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 8:17 PM

> by seeing how smoothly a few more documents go (the first two went

Barry, Peter, Murray,

Thank you for the explanation.  This is sort of my concern, that it makes
appsawg sound a bit like a factory for churning out RFC as cheaply as possible,
like some far eastern manufacturer of cotton clothing.

I want the process of producing an RFC to be challenging, to demonstrate
that there is support for this as an RFC and that there has been adequate
review. Asking for approval for seven I-Ds in three days does limit the
likely review, and indeed, I see that one I-D has already progressed
before even those three days are up, but I am not suggesting you extend it.
Rather, I shall think again, perhaps at IETF Last Call, about the process
and how it has served us.

Tom Petch

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 18:16:17 +0100

Hi Tom,

>and how it has served us.
The bar for accepting documents as WG documents should be lower than the 
bar for saying that they are ready for IESG review. Rest assured that 
APPSAWG chairs are not going to initiate 7 WGLC at the very same moment.

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 13:27:19 -0400

> before even those three days are up, but I am not suggesting you extend it.

Maybe you misunderstand the note that started this.  No one has asked
for approval for *any* documents.  We've asked to hear objections to
having the working group *process* the documents.  They still all have
to get review and go through the same process they would have gone
through as individual submissions -- but with *more* oversight and
attention.  How do you think that will cheapen the process?

We're also not handling seven at the same time.  My note said that
we'd focus on three first, and each of those will progress at its own
pace.  And be assured that any documents that have insufficient review
and support will not make it to the ADs.

That some have already "progressed" just means that we've given them
working-group names.  If the working group decides not to handle any
document, either by explicit decision or by neglect and lack of
support, that document can still fail.  Further, most of these
documents have already had significant review, comment, and
discussion, some on this list and some elsewhere.

I'd really prefer to see effort put into discussion of the documents,
rather than into meta-discussion of the working group.  If, in the
end, someone thinks that a document either got a "free pass" by being
handled by the working group, or got mired in process that it would
have avoided as an individual submission, we'd all like to hear about
it then.  If it turns out that this working group isn't helping to do
things right, we can and will shut it down.

Barry