RE: Proposed IETF Working Group: sming

[Dan Romascanu <dromasca@avaya.com>]

Steve,

You seem to be saying that new-work is a list primarily set for
informational purposes. Jon, Joan, and myself are asking where a PROPOSED
WG, that did not hold a BOF of itself, and did not establish an e-mail list,
should be announced to and discussed by the IETF community. Bert seems to
think that 'new-work' might be the place, while your take seems to be
slightly different.

Regards,

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Steve Coya [SMTP:scoya@ietf.org]
> Sent:	Tue October 24 2000 18:02
> To:	Cucchiara, Joan
> Cc:	'Jon Saperia'; Dan Romascanu; 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)';
> mibs@ops.ietf.org
> Subject:	RE: Proposed IETF Working Group: sming
> 
> 
> Folks,
> 
> For quite some time (since January 1998 if not before), the IESG has
> posted WG Review messages to the IETF-Announcement list and to the
> new-work list. This is done with a single message (i.e new-work does NOT
> get advance notice).
> 
> The new-work list contains addresses for leaders of other standards
> organizations. This is one of the mechanisms used by the IESG to insure
> that we are not about to embark upon a work effort already being done
> elsewherwe.
> 
> Note that these are PROPOSED WG actions, and that the IESG has NOT made
> any decision on them.
> 
> 
> 
> Steve
> 
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Cucchiara, Joan wrote:
> 
> >>
> >>Jon/Dan,
> >>
> >>I too am in the same boat as you and
> >>was not aware of this "new-work" list and
> >>the first time I heard of this new working Group
> >>was on ANNOUNCE.  Likewise I was expecting 
> >>a discussion regarding a BOF.
> >>
> >>I also have similar concerns with the Charter.
> >>
> >>Is there an archive for the "new-work" list?
> >>
> >>   -Thanks, Joan
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Jon Saperia [mailto:saperia@mediaone.net]
> >>> Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 10:58 AM
> >>> To: Dan Romascanu; 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; mibs@ops.ietf.org; 
> >>> Jon Saperia
> >>> Cc: iesg-secretary
> >>> Subject: Re: Proposed IETF Working Group: sming
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> on 10/22/2000 10:34 AM, Dan Romascanu at dromasca@avaya.com wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> > Bert,
> >>> > 
> >>> > There seems to be a problem here. I was not on new-work, I actually
> >>> > was not aware about this list. I received the sming 
> >>> announcement from
> >>> > 'IETF-Announce'. If I am the last guy in the IETF that does 
> >>> not know about
> >>> > it, I will shamefully stay quiet in my corner. However, if 
> >>> there are other
> >>> > people in my situation, then probably this mechanism should 
> >>> be made more
> >>> > popular. For instance, the announcement below could include 
> >>> a phrase like
> >>> > 'Discussions about the charter of this proposed Working 
> >>> Group should be made
> >>> > on new-work@ietf.org'. The current text not only does not 
> >>> contain such a
> >>> > pointer but includes a phrase that seems to discourage 
> >>> discussion  (' The
> >>> > following Description was submitted, and is provided for 
> >>> informational
> >>> > purposes'), and leaves one wondering what is the process of 
> >>> discussing
> >>> > future Working Group charters in the absence of a BOF and 
> >>> of an e-mail list
> >>> > of the specific subject.
> >>> > 
> >>> > Regards,
> >>> > 
> >>> > Dan
> >>> 
> >>> Dan,  do not feel bad. You have at least one person in the 
> >>> same situation -
> >>> me. I was aware that Juergen was interested in this and 
> >>> expected something
> >>> after the IETF presentation, but did not see anything until 
> >>> the Announce
> >>> post the other day as well.
> >>> 
> >>> I too am used to a BOF or something like that and was not 
> >>> familiar with the
> >>> new-work address.
> >>> 
> >>> I would like to have seen this earlier as I would have raised the same
> >>> objections about a c syntax based system being too costly a 
> >>> change and not
> >>> appropriate for our 'users' without corresponding benefit. I 
> >>> applaud the
> >>> work to extend the expressiveness of the SMI, but do not 
> >>> believe a change of
> >>> this type is needed and the c system optimizes the wrong 
> >>> things. I have
> >>> raised these issues to Juergen and others several times in the past.
> >>> 
> >>> The purpose of this not is to, re-document this concern, not 
> >>> debate it. I
> >>> assume we can in the working group, though the charter as 
> >>> proposed seems to
> >>> have the structure as a forgone conclusion.
> >>> 
> >>> /jon
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>