Re: [DNA] CONSENSUS CALL : Document merges

[Greg Daley <Greg.Daley@eng.monash.edu.au>]

Hi Thomas, 

The problem you highlighted with regard to the document 
proliferation has been one of the contributory factors
which has slowed advancement.

The progress had slowed before that though, as you pointed
out.  

I think everyone is at the stage where they would just like to
see the documents come out.  Suresh and I have talked to
Jari about realistic milestones, and will release them as soon
as we know what the result of the consensus call is.

The new milestones will require an increase in work rate, but
not in advance of anything reasonable for a group of this size.
Essentially though, the WG and chairs have to put in more
effort if we actually want to see the documents come out.

Thanks for your input on this.

Greg

----- Original Message -----
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sunday, June 25, 2006 4:47 am
Subject: Re: [DNA] CONSENSUS CALL : Document merges
To: Sathya Narayanan <sathya@research.panasonic.com>
Cc: suresh.krishnan@ericsson.ca, Dna <dna@eng.monash.edu.au>, "Suresh
Krishnan (QB/EMC)" <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>, Greg Daley
<gregd@research.panasonic.com>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>

> > Yes - it means "less work for the current authors ang the
> > group".
> 
> OK
> 
> > But, my intention is not to reduce work alone, I am just concerned
> > that more work may lead to the work not getting done in a timely
> > manner.
> 
> Personally, I'm already concerned about the progress this WG is
> making. IMO, not a lot has happened in the last 6+ months or so. In
> terms of what needs to be done (technology wise), I think that is
> pretty well understood. But we have too many documents, they overlap
> in confusing/contradictory ways, but we aren't actually seeing much
> progress in getting those documents cleaned up. IMO, anyway. As one
> crude example, how many times have the various IDs been revved in the
> last 2-3 IETF cycles? if the answer is one revision per IETF cycle,
> that's not fast enough and indicates slow progress.
> 
> I would encourage the chairs to take stock of the situation and put
> together a plan covering the next 3-6 months (with concrete milestones
> and commitments from document editors) that show us getting done and
> shipping documents to the IESG.
> 
> Thomas
>