Subject: [ipfix] WG process: next steps

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 22:19:26 -0800 (PST)

Hello everyone:

Thanks to those who responded to my proposals a day or two back.  
We plan to continue producing the IPFIX Architecture and Data Model 
documents as follows:

First, what we're trying to achieve by 22 February is the -00 versions 
of the IPFIX Architecture and Data Model drafts.  -00 drafts don't need 
to be nicely-polished, complete documents.  They need to be complete 
enough to show people what they're about, with sufficient detail to 
prompt their readers to send in email suggestions for improvements.  
Also, apart from the periods around each IETF meeting, the IETF 
Secretariat are happy to publish new versions of drafts as often as we 
need, indeed many WGs have documents getting to -09 and higher.
We don't have to produce a highly-detailed, bulky document for version 
00.

In order to get the -00 drafts done before 22 Feb, an 'editorial' team 
of 5, i.e. Benoit, Ganesh, KC, Juergen and Paul will teleconference 
next Monday with the co-chairs, review the two individual drafts, and 
determine the -00 drafts' contents.  The teleconference will also assign
the sections of each draft to various editors.  

The initial team (above) should be able to get the -00 drafts submitted 
by Friday.  After that, I believe that the WG is past the point where 
it needs a 'design team.'  We should go back to having all discussion  
on the IPFIX list.

One problem for the WG right now is 'how do we make sure that people 
who contribute to the WG effort are properly recognised for their   
efforts.  Seems to me that around 4 is surely enough to do the actual 
editing (though I do realise that editing does take a lot of time), so 
we can't all be editors!

We need to think about how we record contributions in the drafts 
'Acknowledgements' sections,  maybe listing the people who
     - wrote original text for sections
     - commented on the list, suggested improvements, etc
     - read the drafts and sent in corrections
Would this be a good way past the 'everyone wants to be on the title
page' problem?  Remember, we're trying to produce the *Working Group's* 
best technical solutions for IPFIX!

Also, we need to put together an agenda for the Minneapolis meeting.
Items so far (in no particular order):

 1. Review latest version of Requirements draft
 2. Review Architecture and Data Model draft
 3. Discuss how to recognise contributions to WG documents
       (e.g. as above)
 4. Establish process for developing the Architecture and Data Model
       drafts.  For example, maybe the co-chairs need to agree
       before any changes are made to section headings?

So ... I trust that by the end of next week we'll have some good -00
drafts to work on.  Do keep the mailing list discussions alive, its 
great to have a really active WG!

Please post your comments on the above to the list, as always.

Cheers, Nevil (firmly wearing WG co-chair hat)

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Nevil Brownlee                     Director, Technology Development |
| Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x8941        ITSS, The University of Auckland |
|   FAX: +64 9 373 7021      Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------P

--
Help        mailto:[email-masked] and say "help" in message body
Unsubscribe mailto:[email-masked] and say
"unsubscribe ipfix" in message body
Archive     http://ipfix.doit.wisc.edu/archive/

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 17:31:38 -0800 (PST)

Hello Kevin and Ram:

Thanks for your emails, both asking how I'd come to choose the 5 people
for Monday's teleconference.  

As I tried to point out in that note, I'm pushing the WG towards having
a -00 (i.e a starting point) pair of IPFIX drafts.  To get that done
before Friday I'm sure we need to keep the group small, so I chose an
arbitrary cutoff point.  

As I also said, the -00 drafts are a starting point.  We can - indeed,
will - discuss the question of how we acknowledge all the WG input at
the Minneapolis meeting.  In particular, the people doing the editing
through next week are not neccessarily the ones who will be the document
authors.  As my next suggestion for that, how about picking one author
from each of the groups that have published individual drafts within
IPFIX?

Cheers, Nevil

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Nevil Brownlee                   Director, Technology Development
   Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x8941      ITSS, The University of Auckland
   FAX: +64 9 373 7021      Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand

---

From: "Reinaldo Penno"<[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 18:13:52 -0800

Randy,

The arbitrary in Nevil's email was in relation to the number and identities
of the editors. Yes, we need to meet tha date but the relation of the
function used to find out the number and the identities and the date remains
a mystery. And probably will...

-RP

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Randy Bush [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 5:26 PM
>To: Penno, Reinaldo [SC9:T327:EXCH]
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: RE: [ipfix] WG process: next steps
>
>
>> this "arbitrary cutoff" point
>
>was not arbitrary.  look at the milestones in the wg charter 
>and realize the
>cut-off dates for i-ds.
>
>randy
>