Subject: [Fecframe] Next steps..

From: "Greg Shepherd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 17:35:18 -0800

Greetings,

We have two list items from the San Diego meeting, and this year is
about gone...

It was suggested that we hold off on last-call for
draft-fecframe-req-01.txt to leave us flexibility as we learn going
forward. Someone mentioned considering a freeze-call.

A search of ietf.org for freeze call brings up only five references;
one from our last minutes and the other four from ROHC. The IETF-ID
tracker has 17 choices for Document State - two of them being Last
Call Requested, and In Last Call - but no mention of freeze-call.

But I suppose we can still get consensus here on the list for the req
draft itself. From there we can decide if there is really such a thing
as a freeze-call, what it buys us, and whether it fits.

So, please - read and respond.

Next, draft-watson-fecframe-framework-00.txt was presented and
received a humming acceptance for adoption.

Again, read and respond please.

Thanks!
Greg

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

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 17:57:00 -0800

I'm happy with the requirements and have therefore no problem to  
consider the draft "frozen".  Couldn't care less how to express that  
formally.
Regards,
Stephan

---

From: Mark Watson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 19:07:48 -0800

I agree - just because there isn't a single formal term doesn't mean  
we can't agree that the document is 'frozen' - so long as we all  
understand what that actually means, which is just that it will form  
the basis of our work and we don't see any need now for further changes.

I think you need to qualify that hum on draft-watson-fecframe- 
framework-00.txt was to adopt *as a working group document*.

...Mark

On Dec 7, 2006, at 5:57 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote:

> consider the draft "frozen".  Couldn't care less how to express  
> that formally.
> Regards,
> Stephan
>

---

From: "Greg Shepherd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 19:37:42 -0800

> the basis of our work and we don't see any need now for further changes.

Agreed. I suppose I was imagining a official "frozen" status would let
it live in draft form without expiration. Other than that I see little
benefit

> framework-00.txt was to adopt *as a working group document*.

Yes, thanks!

Greg

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 08:20:36 -0500

Hello;

On Dec 7, 2006, at 10:07 PM, Mark Watson wrote:

> I agree - just because there isn't a single formal term doesn't  
> mean we can't agree that the document is 'frozen' - so long as we  
> all understand what that actually means, which is just that it will  
> form the basis of our work and we don't see any need now for  
> further changes.
>

I think it is appropriate to have a Working Group Last Call to  
"freeze" this document. WGLCs are generally 2 weeks, so this would  
end on the 22nd of December, at 5:00 PM PST.

Please read draft-fecframe-req-01.txt and make comments during this  
period.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: "stephen botzko" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:29:00 -0500

Hi All

Someone in San Diego said that the normal practice was to leave the
requirements open until the framework draft was complete.  That allowed the
requirements to be revised if new requirements were discovered during the
development of the draft.

I'm just a newbie, so I don't know the ins and outs of the procedures.  But
that approach seemed to have merit to me.

Does the "freeze" you are talking about preclude such revisions?  If so, it
would seem to me that we'd be better off simply letting the requirements
document lie fallow instead of formally "freezing" it.

Any event, I have no issues at the present time with the current
requirements document.

Regards,
Steve Botzko

---

From: "Greg Shepherd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 07:40:59 -0800

It was suggested to me to do a working group last call, and send it to
the IESG with a note to our ADs not to do anything with it. Once a
draft is in IESG review it doesn't expire, but can still be updated.

Greg

---

From: "stephen botzko" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:43:15 -0500

Sounds good.

Steve B.

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 16:49:41 +0100

> draft is in IESG review it doesn't expire, but can still be updated.

Hmmm,

It will show up as bad case in the IESG statistics ;-). I would prefer 
that the WG kept it alive themselves. It shouldn't need that many 
bumping of the revision number during the time until you complete the 
solution.

The freeze call is not commonly done. However I think it is a good idea 
that enable the WG to have a document that was agreed and consensus at a 
particular time. While still not being cast in stone as the development 
on the solution progress. If the WG see the need they can update the 
requirements and do a new freeze call to ensure that there is consensus 
on the updated version.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Greg Shepherd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 08:47:19 -0800

> requirements and do a new freeze call to ensure that there is consensus

The AD has spoken. :)

Okay, no trouble. We'll bump as necessary. So I suppose the
freeze-call is an internal WG state and not an official IESG state?

Thanks,
Greg

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 19:27:10 -0500

My feeling is that there was consensus at the meeting to adopt draft- 
watson-fecframe-framework-00.txt
as a working group document. This needs to be ratified by the list.

This is a mini call for comments on this matter, which will expire 5  
PM PST Friday Dec 15.

If you agree, and especially if you disagree,
please speak up. Of course, comments on the document text are also  
appropriate and welcomed.

Regards
Marshall Eubanks

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 09:08:57 +0100

> freeze-call is an internal WG state and not an official IESG state?

Correct.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund