WG Process Issues (was RE: RADEXT WG Last Call on "RADIUS Delegated IPv6 Prefix Attribute")

["Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com>]

Glen Zorn writes...

> This is clearly not the way this WG works, though (just one 
> example: the 802 draft which emerged horribly broken from the
> design team & was funneled directly into last call).

Whether the draft was "horribly" broken is a value judgment.  You have
accurately observed one item of process that, in RADEXT at least, is
different from the traditional IETF of years past.  Working Group Last
Call (WGLC) is used more aggressively these days, and is not always the
"last" opportunity for the WG to comment.  Sometimes WGLC is in reality
Working Group First Call.  The fact of the matter is that the chairs
have noticed that it is often difficult to get a broad cross section of
the WG to actively comment on drafts until they are in WGLC.  I suspect
that other WGs have seen this, as well.

> I consider the position of WG chair to be a service position, with the
> major responsibility that (fraught with danger!) of gauging WG
consensus.

This is still a major responsibility.  It is not the only one however.
Among the additional responsibilities, the chairs are held accountable
by the ADs for adherence to WG milestones and charters, and for the
overall quality level of documents that the WG sends to the IESG.


--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>