Re: IPS: FCIP & this list

[Ralph Weber <ralphoweber@compuserve.com>]

Black_David@emc.com wrote:

>
> Ralph,
>
> > There are minutes (well, more like discussion notes) from the
> > conference call and I will ask that they be posted to this
> > reflector.
>
> That'll be an improvement, thanks.  Discussion notes are
> exactly the sort of thing that should to be visible on this
> reflector.
>
> > The interim FCIP drafts and issues lists are maintained in PDF
> > format, amounting to between .2M and .5M of new material per
> > week. Since this is Rome, they cannot be posted to this reflector.
> > It is totally impractical to translate the PDFs to text, sorry.
>
> That's a judgment call.  Actually sending the PDFs to the list
> or the I-D servers is a no-no, but it would be ok to put them
> on a web site and post URLs to the list, as long as new text
> versions of the draft do go to the I-D servers at reasonable
> intervals.  It would also be ok to keep the interim PDF versions
> private among the authors until the next major revision of
> the draft is ready for the I-D servers.  There's
> no requirement to make all working notes visible.
>
> I do need to clarify one point of process:
>
> > I doubt that the
> > WG Last Calls time requirement would be shortened by more than
> > 10% even if everything done by the FCIP authors was posted
> > to this reflector.  In particular, I see no reason to believe
> > that the people who will raise Last Call issues will remember
> > earlier postings here, or bother to participate on this
> > reflector prior to Last Call.
>
> My concern is that the existence of prior discussion on this
> reflector can be a significant factor in whether an issue raised
> in WG Last Call causes the Last Call to fail.  If one can point
> to prior discussion or even acceptance without discussion on this
> list of a technical approach that is questioned during WG Last
> Call, then such an issue may be resolvable by pointing to that
> discussion and indicating that the WG considered the alternative
> and has rough consensus to proceed as currently specified.  OTOH,
> if the issue is new to the reflector and technically valid, the
> odds of the WG Last Call failing are significantly increased.
> WG Last Call periods are measured in weeks (at least 2, but the
> initial WG Last Call period for each of the main protocol
> drafts is likely to be longer).  If a WG Last Call fails, the
> draft has to be revised, and the WG Last Call repeated; we went
> through one of these cycles with the iSCSI requirements draft.
>
> Thanks,
> --David
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> David L. Black, Senior Technologist
> EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
> +1 (508) 435-1000 x75140     FAX: +1 (508) 497-8500
> black_david@emc.com       Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
> ---------------------------------------------------