Subject: [Syslog] WGLC and document advancement

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 13:22:50 -0400

Hi,

There are good things and bad things that come with having a new WG
co-chair.
I think I have helped the WG by driving the completion of milestones.
That's the good part.
The bad part is I bring my own opinions of what adequate review means.

The IETF has started using a new process, called document shepherding,
for the advancement of documents to the standards-track. The chairs
are given much more responsibility and authority to decide whether
documents are ready for advancement. They are expected to write up
their analyses of WG issues, consensus, and degree of review of the
documents being submitted, and these analyses will be reviewed at
every step of the process after this point, as the members of the IESG
try to determine whether the document really is ready for advancment
to standards-track. You can see the details they expect us to provide
by reading draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-07 (which has been
expanded quite a bit from the -05- draft used during your earlier
WGLCs).

I have shepherded a number of documents through the process, and I
know how difficult it can be to get documents through the process, and
how much the documents can be delayed during the standards-approval
process if they are not really ready for submission to that process.

I am concerned that the documents have not gotten adequate review
during WGLC. There have been very few comments made, and I would like
to see more reviews done by the members of the WG for each of these
documents. 

If you have problems with the documents, speak up now, so the chairs
can be sure your concerns are recognized and have been addressed. 

If you have read the document, and found no important problems and
have no significant objections to the document, and belive it is ready
to be submitted to the advancement process, please send a note to the
WG saying so. 

David Harrington
[email-masked] 
[email-masked]
[email-masked]

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

---

From: "Rainer Gerhards" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 02:33:30 +0200

David,

Thanks for the reminder.

I have read -transport-tls several times, only been unable to have a
close look at the latest increment. To my understanding, there were only
minor changes to the document, so I am still happy with it.

I am concerned about the lack of feedback to my response to your
concerns on the "enc" SD-ID and transparency of MSG and STRUCTURED-DATA
in -protocol. I am hesitant to do any edits until there has been any
final discussion of these issues (reminder: I am most probably able to
edit starting September, 18th).

I have roughly reviewed -transport-tls (due to my time constraints). All
in all, it looks good enough to me. My main concerns have already been
addressed by adding the version number. I think, however, this point
needs some more discussion. 

There are many other points in -tls that could be discussed. HOWEVER, I
think discussing any of them now would make us miss our milestone. What
is there is well enough. It could be better. Let's do that at later
stage (version field permits this). 

We have been discussing syslog-protocol and -tls (and the work leading
to it) for 3 or 4 years now, often going in circles. Participation
levels have varied greatly. My personal opinion is that many folks are
finally bored with going ever and ever over the same arguments. But I
may be wrong. Getting some work done would definitely help us.

We should not aim for the perfect. In an ideal world, we would have only
ideal solutions. But we do not life in an ideal world. If NASA feels
strong enough to launch a shuttle with an imperfect fuel cell, we should
probably feel strong enough in putting some non-ideal but obviously
useful work to completion. So please comment on the drafts and open
issues.

Rainer
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Harrington [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 1:23 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Syslog] WGLC and document advancement
> 
> Hi,
>

---

From: "Rainer Gerhards" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 09:10:17 +0200

WG,

still no WGLC comments or any further responses...

Let me share my deep frustration with you. I have cautioned against low
participation levels last year when the question was if the WG should be
concluded or continue to work. Then, the overall opinion was that there
were sufficient interest in the topic. With that on my mind, I put
another round of effort into syslog-protocol. I am now working on this
for several years. I spent considerable work on it. Each time when it
looked close to finish, either some radical new thoughts came in (which
is fine), an old issue was re-itereated (which I do not consider to be
OK) or some other unexpected show-stopper showed up. This time, it is
the insufficient review. I am thoroughly disappointed and now need to
think that all the time I put into this effort is wasted. This is quite
regrettable.

However, I do not intend to spent any more time on it without the
*solid* indication that the work can be completed and published. As
such, I will NOT make any further edits at this time and I will also
hold my planned review of other WG documents. I will also refrain from
commenting on any technical issues. Probably the best option at this
stage would be to recommend to the IESG to finally conclude the WG.

Thanks,
Rainer 

> From: Rainer Gerhards [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2006 2:34 AM
> To: David Harrington; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Syslog] WGLC and document advancement
> 
> David,
> 
> Thanks for the reminder.
>

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 15:12:05 -0400

Hi Rainer,

Welcome back. I hope the vacation with family was relaxing and fun.

I understand your frustration. 

Let me be clear however, that requiring reviews during WGLC is
certainly not a new requirement; reviews during WGLC have ALWAYS been
a requirement of work being submitted to the IESG for advancement.
Working group chairs got lax for a while, and submitted documents that
were obviously not ready for advancement. The IESG now requires better
reviews by the WG before accepting documents for advancement. If the
WG provides the reviews, I believe we stand a very good chance of
finally getting these through the process to RFCs.

David Harrington
[email-masked] 
[email-masked]
[email-masked]

> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 3:10 AM