1 Notes on 8BITMIME pre- evalution by IESG IETF 76 – Hiroshima November, 2009 Alexey Melnikov

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
A Proposal to Improve IETF Productivity Geoff Huston Marshall Rose draft-huston-ietf-pact-00 October 2002.
Advertisements

COGNITION. Cognition Questions Do you have difficulty remembering or concentrating? Split Interviews: How often do you have difficulty remembering important.
IETF 76 – November 8-14 – Hiroshima, Japan RMT LCT draft-rmt-pi-alc-revised-10 Mark Watson.
Lecture 7 5/2/15. Features of a project A start and a finish Is a unique activity with a visible output May involve uncertainty and risk Involves a team.
Agenda Tobias Gondrom July 2011 Websec WG IETF 81 1.
1 LaCrosse PMI Chapter Meeting A discussion about the Introduction of PM within your business 4/20/2011 Jim Strong Mayo Clinic DLMP PMO Director.
Everything you need to know in order to set up your Reader’s Notebook
Chapter 5: Project Scope Management
XML Introduction What is XML –XML is the eXtensible Markup Language –Became a W3C Recommendation in 1998 –Tag-based syntax, like HTML –You get to make.
By Dr. David Agnew and Mr. Jim Wendell Arkansas State University Making Decisions.
Types of Essays... and why we write them.. Why do we write essays? Hint: The answer is NOT ‘because sir/miss told me to’
Thesis Statements  Constructing effective thesis statements and research questions and  A few useful ways of approaching the process...
Unit 1 Task 4 Barriers To Communication Jackson Coltman.
A Social Story for Students
Theme in Literature.
Common Log Format (CLF) DISPATCH ad hoc – IETF 75 Spencer Dawkins Theo Zourzouvillys
Evolutionizing the IETF Harald Alvestrand Subversive.
Ever wondered what you can do in Paris well I am going to show you.
69th IETF Chicago, July 2007 CCAMP Working Group Charter and Liaisons.
PRJ566 Project Planning and Management
Social Skill: Negotiating. 2 Responding to Anger - Definition A way to learn how to identify when another person is angry and to react to that person.
Recruiting Chapter Leadership Work Smarter – Not Harder.
1 Project Information and Acceptance Testing Integrating Your Code Final Code Submission Acceptance Testing Other Advice and Reminders.
DIME WG IETF 82 Dime WG Agenda & Status THURSDAY, November 17, 2011 Jouni Korhonen & Lionel Morand.
SIEVE Mail Filtering WG IETF 69, Chicago WG Chairs: Cyrus Daboo, Alexey Melnikov Mailing List: Jabber:
What makes for a quality RFC? An invited talk to the MPLS WG Adrian Farrel IETF-89 London, March 2014.
Routing Area Open Meeting Hiroshima, November 2009 Area Directors Ross Callon Adrian Farrel.
STEP 4 Manage Delivery. Role of Project Manager At this stage, you as a project manager should clearly understand why you are doing this project. Also.
WG Document Status 192nd IETF TEAS Working Group.
© 2015 albert-learning.com Phrases For Business English.
Node Information Queries July 2002 Yokohama IETF Bob Hinden / Nokia.
Multiple Interfaces (MIF) WG IETF 79, Beijing, China Margaret Wasserman Hui Deng
21 November 2002IETF 55 - Atlanta, GA, USA1 lemonade Eric Burger Glenn Parsons
Asking for Assistance conveying a tone in your writing conveying a tone in your writing.
Conducting Business South East Texas Area Assembly.
Introduction to the ERWC (Expository Reading and Writing Course)
Responding to Reviewers. Rare to get an acceptance with no changes So two paths, rejection or revise and resubmit Rejection Revise and Resubmit.
Parliamentary Procedure Part 1. Objectives Understand The reasons for Parli Pro Understand The reasons for Parli Pro Understand the main motion Understand.
Business Development Services 1 How will you operate your business? Session 8.
Mobility for IP: Performance, Signaling and Handoff Optimization (MIPSHOP) IETF 73, November 2008 Vijay Devarapalli
Requirements and Selection Process for RADIUS Crypto-Agility December 5, 2007 David B. Nelson IETF 70 Vancouver, BC.
Faculty Forum: Evaluation of Teaching Sponsored by the Faculty Senate November 10, 2006.
OAuth WG Blaine Cook, Hannes Tschofenig. Note Well Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft.
1. Wikis for Classes By Luis Avila 2 Why do we choose a wiki for ? It was tough as a solution for communicate with students and parents. It is a nice.
CSCI N201 Programming Concepts and Database 2 - STAIR Lingma Acheson Department of Computer and Information Science, IUPUI.
APHEO Membership Survey Results May 2, APHEO Membership Survey Low membership turn-out at general meetings Obtain membership input on format, location,
Interface to the Routing System (IRS) BOF IETF 85, Atlanta November 2012.
PROTO Team Update IETF 64 9 Nov 2005 / Plenary.
IDR WG Document Status Update Sue Hares, Yakov Rekhter November 2005.
1 Yet Another Mail Working Group IETF 76 November 11, 2009.
DICE BOF, IETF-87 Berlin DTLS In Constrained Environments (DICE) BOF Wed 15:10-16:10, Potsdam 3 BOF Chairs: Zach Shelby, Carsten Bormann Responsible AD:
SIEVE Mail Filtering WG IETF 70, Vancouver WG Chairs: Cyrus Daboo, Alexey Melnikov Mailing List: Jabber:
Architecture DWG Closing Plenary Report
Netconf Notifications Sharon Chisholm Hector Trevino IETF 67 November 2006.
Why Peer Review? Rationale #4
ID Tracker States: An Internet Draft’s Path Through the IESG
Hearing, Listening and Responding to Patient Stories - the Plymouth experience Ray Jones, Kim Young and Pam Nelmes - Plymouth University.
TIM 58 Chapter 3: Requirements Determination
Note Well Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft or RFC and any statement made.
Experience with RTG-DIR
76th IETF meeting, November 8-13, 2009
Online Agenda and Slides at:
Phrases For Business English
E- Portfolio PowerPoint Presentation
IETF68 Mini-BOF MIB-Doctor-Sponsored MIB Document Templates
The problem solving loop
Ending Punctuation …is my friend..
Presented by (Abdisamad Abdullahi Abdulle)
Essay.
How to make decisions on what is urgent and what is important.
Presentation transcript:

1 Notes on 8BITMIME pre- evalution by IESG IETF 76 – Hiroshima November, 2009 Alexey Melnikov

Evaluation IESG was confused by the two step review process, as it was never tried before –Some Ads didn’t realize during YAM chartering how the process is supposed to work –General feeling within IESG that binding commitment on future IESG members is not a good thing, because this would prevent future ADs from doing their review job as described in AD job definition Most ADs were happy to publicly express their opinion on the document, noting that IETF LC can bring new issues and cause them to change their minds 2

Specific comments The pre-evaluation document itself was useful –The document wasn’t explicit about things that were discussed in the WG but resulted in no change This would help IESG to think about difficult issues –Some other minor changes to the format were suggested 3

Specific comments A sentiment was expressed that testing the process on something as simple as 8BITMIME is not going to prove/uncover anything –IESG is asking the WG to try the process on a moderately complex document Progressing extensions before base document (also in scope for the WG) seems wrong 4

Other related IESG discussions IESG got distracted by discussing what can possibly be wrong with YAM documents (e.g. inadequate Security Considerations) 5

Internal IESG processes Existing web tools at IESG disposal were not adequate –IESG were not happy with voting on the pre- evaluation document as if it was the document being moved to Full Because this is confusing to IESG IESG “Management Items” will be used in the future This is an internal IESG issue 6

My take on the results Two step pre-evaluation might be more costly to both the WG and the IESG than a one step “move the document to Full Standard” process –The WG might be losing sight of the end goal –We need to evaluate which process is more costly Suggestion: try progressing 2 documents, one using 2 step process and 1 using the usual 1 step process 7